Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Reviews 107

Why would the Scottish Government set up an Ombudsman that would help victims of incompetence, maladministration, failure and in many cases cause your death, Ambulances taking 30 hours to turn up to 999 calls, many people are dead by the time the Ambulance arrives, but when you call an Undertaker they will be with you in less than an hour 24/7 365 days a year. So the SPSO is set up to help all failing and corrupt Scottish Services. as we see SPSO has a fantastic failure rate by those contacting TrustPilot, this will please the Scottish Government
100% of corruption, failure and maladministration covered up. SPSO just churns out letters that your complaint is not upheld.

After being directed to the SPSO by several organisations, I expected a body capable of providing a substantive assessment of my case.
I reported intimidating behaviour by a housing association tenant, which over time involved other residents. Despite multiple reports, the housing association did not take effective action to safeguard my safety.
The SPSO process took over five months and focused almost entirely on procedural consistency with the organisation’s internal policies, without meaningfully addressing the nature and escalation of the behaviour reported.
The result is that a situation experienced as intimidating, despite being documented and raised at multiple levels, remained without any meaningful intervention.
In practice, this means that when a situation does not meet formal thresholds, the SPSO itself does not have an effective mechanism to address it.
A system that brings matters to a conclusion, but not to a resolution.
This raises a legitimate question as to what function this service is actually able to fulfil.

The only way this appalling organisation is investigated and hopefully closed down is when the people commenting on here bring it to attention of the appropriate body at Holyrood. This is the person to contact, The Clerk/Chief Executive of the Scottish Parliament.
Its the only way to clean up this organisation.

I was discriminated and victimised by an NHS dentist in one of the most clear cut examples of discrimination. The dentist point blank denied it despite the evidence being black and white. It eventually proceeded to SPSO but the process was incredibly slow and took 6 months before I was allocated to someone. After 12 months, they took the decision not to investigate despite all the evidence in front of them. I appreciate folk in my situation would feel disgruntled but 2 years on from this I can clearly reflect and say my complaint was one of the most open and shut examples of discrimination you can come across. And the SPSO did nothing and did not want to help in anyway. The original incident was very upsetting but the slow dragged out process with the SPSO was even more painful. No one ever asked to contact me for further information and out of the blue my complaint was dismissed with no further action. Deeply deeply dissapointing and it looks like I am not the only person with disability who has had this experience. Disabled people are amungst the most vulnerable in our society but there is no current independent legal mechanism to raise a complaint about discrimination. SPSO is the only avenue and it has consistently let down those with disability (especially in situations trying to access basic health services) time and time again. SPSO simply does not work for it's users and it's time it was overhauled or replaced by another organisation that has direct accountability

I made a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), expecting an independent review grounded in current evidence and safeguarding awareness. What I experienced instead was deeply concerning.

The SPSO accepted obsolete medical data without proper scrutiny, despite a more recent clinical context being available. When medical information is outdated, incomplete, or superseded, reliance on it undermines the integrity of any investigation. An ombudsman should be challenging weak evidence — not reinforcing it.

Even more troubling was the apparent failure to recognise over-the-counter (OTC) medication as a viable suicide risk factor. OTC medications are widely documented as being used in self-harm and suicide attempts. To treat them as insignificant or irrelevant demonstrates a lack of understanding of real-world safeguarding risks.

When an oversight body minimises credible risk indicators and leans on outdated material, it does more than make a procedural error — it risks normalising unsafe practice across public services.

The SPSO exists to hold institutions accountable. That requires critical analysis, up-to-date medical awareness, and an understanding of vulnerability. In my case, those standards were not met.

I cannot recommend the service based on my experience.

I am writing to provide formal service-user feedback to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. This correspondence is separate from, and not intended to form part of, any live complaint or decision review.
I am an experienced adult who has spent several years navigating NHS and public-sector complaints processes in Scotland, including escalation to the SPSO. I am writing because the way the SPSO currently operates has a profound and damaging effect on people who approach it as a last safeguard.
By the time most individuals reach the SPSO, they are already exhausted. They have typically experienced prolonged harm, repeated deflection, and procedural dead-ends elsewhere. Many approach the SPSO believing it to be an independent body that will finally examine the substance of what has gone wrong.
What they often encounter instead is a process that focuses narrowly on whether an organisation followed its own procedures, rather than whether those procedures were applied accurately, safely, or reasonably in the real world. Where a public body asserts that its position is “reasonable,” that assertion can appear to be accepted even when complainants provide detailed, evidence-based accounts of ongoing harm, factual inaccuracies, or unresolved risk.
The outcome is not simply disappointment. It is a sense of being erased.
When serious concerns are reduced to procedural compliance, complainants are left feeling disbelieved, diminished, and blamed for persisting. Many describe the experience as retraumatising — not because they failed to obtain a particular outcome, but because their lived reality is reframed as inconsequential once it no longer fits within SPSO’s narrow lens of review.
This has real consequences. People leave the SPSO process more distressed than when they entered it, having been told — implicitly or explicitly — that documented harm, risk, or systemic failure does not warrant further scrutiny because it sits outside procedural boundaries. For individuals already at breaking point, this can be devastating.
Oversight bodies do not only resolve complaints; they shape public confidence. When the final stage of redress is experienced as procedural closure without substantive engagement, it risks functioning as a firewall rather than a safeguard.
I am not writing this out of anger, nor to challenge a specific decision. I am writing because the human impact of SPSO’s operating model is not incidental — it is foreseeable, repeatable, and being felt by many people who come to you already vulnerable.

Slow, overly bureacratic, selective on what they choose to highlight.....and it wont be the issues that you believe are to blame. Offers insincere apologies whilst denying that the NHS are to blame! Biased. Doesn't improve the NHS because the improvements suggested are not followed up on or embedded in practice! There are no checks. Same issues keep re emerging. This is a serious waste of money!!

Excellent service throughout the investigation into my complaint against the NHS, kept informed at all stages and both my complaints were upheld by the SPSO and the NHS were given area's to look at and to put into practice the shortcomings highlighted.

A total waste of tax payers money and clearly a con. There is corruption going on at high level. Where there is corruption in Scotland it must be exposed. From Police Scotland to the Wheatley Housing Group to every local council and social housing landlords to the Scottish SNP Goverment and the Sheriff law courts to the Scottish Child protection services and the Crown Office, I have seen it all as a child in care in Scotland I came back to Scotland in 2014 I have seen it all and suffered due to corruption. From MI5 to MI6 to the Met Police it's a powerful voice in the making about time people found their voice.

Don't waste your time with the SPSO. They are a danger to your health. Last year they only investigated 3.5% of the referrals made to them so you only have a 3.5 chance out of a 100 that they will investigate your concerns.

too much discretion powers given to housing associations landlords .to do nothing .your word is nothing with out witnesses or evidence what ever that means .

Important data about SPSO: ScotGov website & search for Petition PE1964 about SPSO.

Scottish Parliament Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.
ScotGov PE1964 - Create an independent review of the SPSO. The review was created to determine the effectiveness of the SPSO.

Accountability Scotland had many concerns of a lack of independent oversight of SPSO:
- Act allows the SPSO to cherry-pick evidence, ignore witnesses and repeat the public body’s unsupported claims. The SPSO does not address why evidence of wrongdoing can be ignored.
- All on-line review data gives lowest rating.
- Common themes of bias illogical arguments & evidence being ignored.
- The procedure for conducting the investigation is to be such as the SPSO thinks fit.

The committee met 07/12/2022, 28/6/2023, 15/4/2024 & 05/3/2025. The committee consensus:
1) A lack of available performance data: No data was discussed.
2) Levels of customer satisfaction: Negative feedback was provided by the public. Trustpilot ratings show 99% of scores were 1-star. This is the lowest rating.
3) Neutrality in external evaluation: No data was discussed.

On 05/3/2025, Mr Ewing concluded the SPSO:
a) Has no power to award any specific remedy to any individual nor to recommend that the body that caused the harm should issue any compensation where there has been a “sustained injustice or hardship”. It seems to me to be a lacuna.
b) May agree: “Well, your complaint is upheld”, they might well feel that that is unsatisfactory, especially in the most serious of cases where there has been injustice and hardship.
05/3/2025: The Committee agreed to close the petition under Rule 15.7 of Standing Orders.

ScotGov ministers knew SPSO was not fit for purpose and decided to close petition PE1964.
Completely scandalous.

The SPSO shields the NHS from legal action. They are incompetent, conceal their mistakes through lies, and intentionally mislead.

If anyone is interested in a thorough investigation of the SPSO's case management, feel free to reach out. I possess undeniable evidence of their conduct.

DO NOT USE SPSO for any clinical negligence case:
- Write formally to your health board & obtain all medical records. Invoke ICO if needed.
- Engage Collaboras Medico-Legal to assess your medical records. I think the cost of this is £1,000.
- Collaboras will determine if a case has merit.
- Engage a clinical negligence Solicitor who will determine the clinical experts needed to win any case.

IF YOU FIRMLY BELIEVE NHS HAS BEEN CLINICALLY NEGLIGENT - INVEST IN YOURSELF.

I followed the Patient Charter through NHS/SPSO etc, this slowed the process down - they all lied & covered up specific medical records.
My case became Timebarred.

I hope this helps!!

An absolute waste of time!!!!

The SPSO describe themselves as an independent body providing fair and unbiased decisions on complaints……Rubbish!!!!

Public services already know the outcome if you are unlucky enough to have to use the SPSO for their services

These review stats don’t lie…. This is a Scam company and should be closed down.

Terrible experience. The SPSO gave the impression of being independent, but in reality I felt ignored and dismissed. From my case and from what I’ve read in other reviews, this organisation is failing in its duty to the public.

My complaint was about poor care at the Surgical Admission Unit Ninewells Dundee.
I am still shocked about the way the SPSO handled my complaint , she was not interested in what I had to say all very rushed, negative , and dismissive.
I had to beg her to look at my complaint.
Only interested in what the NHS board had to say and not the experience of the patient,
Bad care is not written up in medical records as the Ninewells are marking there own mistakes.
Disappointed but not surprised.
Will contact the First Minister John Swinney this cannot be allowed to happen, Its shocking the SPSO needs to be investigated if 98% reviews are this bad....

Absolute waste of time thinking you will get an unbiased investigation from this bunch. I complained about appalling care under mental health services in Glasgow which caused emotional and physical harm. They of course sided with the NHS saying they used medical reports written to draw conclusions. I asked whether they thought the people I was complaining about would seriously write anything that would jeopardise their own position and why were they not listening to me. They said that's the way it was done. Appalling absolutely appalling. This organisation is not fit for purpose and just another mouthpiece of the NHS to back them up or cover up whichever way you look at it.

For years I have contacted the Ombudsman about serious complains. They have been worse than useless. Most recently I sent a well documented complaint to them. And they just said, they couldn't deal with it. We need a competant Ombudsman.

They dont get involved in tenants disputes their policy is to make sure landlords follow their complaints policies.procudures and thats it !!!!!! landlords refuse to any action on anything even after 2 years of complaints about harrassements from tennants in a community hall .they state they will take no action on any issues been raised .the police are saying its not a crime to be agressive threatening bulling intimidating antaginising provication threshold is to high for them to take any action they advise you to move house can you beleive that .

I contacted the ombudsman due to it taking Wheatley homes more than 3 months to investigate a complaint which is supposed to take 5 working days.

The lady over the phone said that I cannot complain as I have not gotten a letter from Wheatley homes regarding my complaint. I asked at what point do I acknowledge that Wheatley homes have no intention of investigating my complaint which? She responded that she advises to keep waiting until I get a response, I said that this isn’t happening though and this is why I am phoning as that advice isn’t really advice as 3 months of waiting is more than fair.

The lady told me I’m disrespectful as I haven’t appreciated how hard it is for her to do this. I said I have not been disrespectful at all I am asking how long I have to wait as waiting for 3 months is more than reasonable. The lady then said she can’t speak with me as I am too disrespectful. I told her that she should apologise for calling me names. She said it is her right as she feels upset. I said well you are being disrespectful to me by calling me names because I am asking how long I have to wait.

She said calling an agent disrespectful is abusive and she is ending the call. I made a formal complaint

I lost the complaint because she was upset and therefore she has the right to hang up on me. I said what about her calling me names? They said she has the right to do that if she is upset and they support her in that.

They said that we need to move on as her feelings are what should matter. I asked about my feelings and I was told that this isn’t helping move things on.

So basically a terrible service

Totally useless, over 1 year to come up with "mistakes were made, lessons, learnt, no further action". If there was any wrong doing they simply turned a blind eye to it. The guy I dealt with was either clueless or being controlled by someone senior to him. Either way he gets his salary easy. They are just an extension of the trough feeders in everyday local government.