In a radical departure from tradition, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) asked another ombudsman to probe its handling of a complaint. The resulting report, sent yesterday to the Scottish Parliament, says it was “the worst case of complaint-handling by an Ombudsman’s office”.

Speaking exclusively to The Herald, Jim Martin, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, said yesterday he took the unprecedented step of asking another ombudsman to investigate the organisation he now heads because he believes it should be judged by the same rules as those it investigates.

The original complaint came to the ombudsman’s office in 2005 and relates to a ­parent who was unhappy about the way North Lanarkshire ­Council handled concerns about her children’s school.

The SPSO’s investigation was concluded on August 19, 2009, three years and nine months after the complaint was received.

“I don’t think anyone has ever done this before,” said Mr Martin, who took up the role in March. “When I took up the position I looked again at this case, which had taken three years and nine months to conclude, and decided it needed a fresh look so I asked Jerry White (the Local Government Ombudsman in England). It is particularly important for us to be open and honest.”

In his report, Mr White concluded the handling of the complaint was mired by “delays and confusion”. He wrote: “Bluntly, it is the worst case of complaint-handling by an Ombudsman’s office that I have seen.”

He said it raised serious concerns about the influence the SPSO allowed an unnamed local MSP to exert on the case, and had no doubt “the mark was overstepped.”

“Perhaps because things had gone so badly wrong from the outset, the office of the SPSO may have given more leeway to the MSP in taking an influential role in the investigation than would otherwise be the case.

He added: “This should have been the SPSO’s investigation and not the MSP’s. At times, I could not tell the difference. The implications of this confusion of roles for the body under investigation need hardly be stressed. And nor need the dangers for the independence of the office of the SPSO.”

Mr Martin said: “We will shortly be submitting rules of engagement to the parliament so MSPs can be made aware of where the lines should be drawn.

“I need to make sure the ombudsman controls the complaint. This complaint should not have taken so long and should not have been handled in the way it was.

“There should not be one rule for us and another for them.

“I don’t intend to do this regularly. It will allow us to learn and move on and will form part of a review of the organisation.”

He added: “While noting that it is about the handling of one specific case at a particular point in time, the report confirms my view that despite a great deal of change that has taken place over recent years, there are some aspects of the organisation’s ­complaint-handling process that need attention.

“I have made an unequivocal apology to the complainant and the council concerned for all the failings on the part of the SPSO that are identified in the report. We clearly fell very far short of the standards that we have set for ourselves and other public bodies.”