Not duly made or withdrawn, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing his skull fracture, that there was a further delay in his being informed of the diagnosis and that there was an unreasonable delay in his being referred to an appropriate specialist.

Mr C declined to provide consent for his medical records to be accessed and his case was therefore discontinued.

Summary

Mr C complained about the university's response to allegations of plagiarism. In particular, he complained that the university had failed to follow procedures in the disciplinary process, and that they failed to follow procedures in relation to his academic appeal.

The university accepted that there had been failings and made a proposal for resolution, which Mr C was unhappy with.

The university agreed to re-open Mr C's complaint with a view to trying to reach a resolution, and Mr C was advised that he could bring his complaint to us in the event that he remained unhappy.

Summary

Ms C had an operation on a toe of her left foot at Forth Valley Royal Hospital. Ms C's foot was put in a plaster cast and when she returned the following month for it to be changed, a member of staff tried to realign the toe contrary to the instructions in Ms C's medical records. We did not take the complaint further because Ms C decided to pursue an alternative way to remedy her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's assessment of his mother (Mrs A)'s residential care charges. Mr C did not have power of attorney for Mrs A, and he had not progressed his concerns to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). We looked at the council's handling of the complaint because of the difficulties Mr C was having in progressing his complaint and because the council did not give him a timely response after they received permission from Mrs A's attorney. The council sent a detailed response to Mr C and offered to convene a CRC.

Summary

Mr C complained about an endoscopy procedure that he had undergone at Forth Valley Royal Hospital which he found painful. Mr C died while our investigation was ongoing. Mr C's death was not connected to the endoscopy procedure about which he complained.

After making further enquiries, we decided that the most appropriate course of action was to discontinue our investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff did not ensure he was properly placed in protected conditions. During our investigation, Mr C withdrew his complaint and we did not reach a finding on the case.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable action after she reported feeling unwell. She was also dissatisfied with the way in which the SPS dealt with her complaint. We did not reach a decision on Ms C's complaint as she was released from prison and did not provide a forwarding address or confirm that she wished us to continue investigating her complaint.

Summary

Mr C (for whom English is not his first language) complained that the association had failed to provide him with translations of his tenancy agreement and information about rent increases. While we were investigating we became aware that the matters subject to investigation had been considered in court, when the association applied for a repossession order. Under the terms of our act we cannot investigate matters where the person has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in court, and so we closed the complaint without making a finding.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided by her dentist. She said an extraction had been incompetently performed and she had not been given adequate treatment following the extraction. This had caused her needless pain and suffering.

It became apparent during the investigation that the General Dental Council (GDC) were conducting a fitness to practise investigation. On the basis that this would consider the care and treatment provided to Ms C and had wider reaching powers, the decision was taken to close the complaint. Ms C was informed she could make a further complaint if the GDC investigation did not address her concerns fully.

Summary

Mr C complained about the interactions with him by a therapist at the board. However, we were unable to investigate these because the information about those interactions was contained in the medical records of the patient, who was Mr C's son. The age of Mr C's son meant that he (his son) needed to give us consent to obtain his medical records; however, we were unable to obtain his son's consent. That meant we had no prospect of establishing the facts about Mr C's complaint or reaching a conclusion on it, and in the circumstances we had to close the complaint without investigation.