Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C attended his GP practice because he was concerned that he may have Lyme disease (an infection transmitted by ticks). He said that the practice failed to follow reasonable process in diagnosing him with Lyme disease. He was prescribed antibiotics on two occasions, some months apart. Mr C said that a GP had failed to note in his medical records that he had a reaction eight days into the second course of antibiotics, which Mr C said was crucial evidence that he had the disease. As a result of the practice's failure to recognise Mr C had Lyme disease, he said that he was concerned for his future health. Mr C also complained that the practice had failed to provide reasonable explanations in their response to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the treatment decisions and investigations carried out by the practice were reasonable in light of the symptoms Mr C presented with. We found that it was reasonable that the practice referred Mr C to several specialists, who did not confirm that Mr C had Lyme disease. We were satisfied that the standard of medical care and treatment was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that the practice properly explained the rationale behind the decision-making on treatment and managing Mr C's symptoms, and that the responses were fair and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who works for an energy management company, complained on behalf of his client about their premises. Mr C complained that Thames Water had unreasonably rejected his request to amend the rateable value (RV) of his client's premises. Mr C maintained the RV should be lower than that being applied by Thames Water. Mr C stated that the RV being used was contrary to the Scottish Water wholesale scheme of charges.

We took independent advice from a water adviser. We found that while there had been errors in maintaining the RV of the premises prior to Thames Water taking over as supplier of water services, the correct RV of the premises was being used by Thames Water. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position that the RV should be set at a lower rate than it was. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about Disclosure Scotland after they issued a disclosure certificate showing him to have a criminal conviction. He complained that Disclosure Scotland unreasonably associated his details with those of another person with a conviction.

Disclosure Scotland apologised and rectified the certificate, but the error had resulted in Mr C losing his job and struggling to find employment. They maintained that they had followed their procedures correctly and had not made any error in processing his application.

We found that Disclosure Scotland had correctly checked the information provided by Mr C against the Police National Computer, and that his details had been correctly associated with someone with a criminal conviction. Their disputes process is set out in the Police Act 1997, and requires applicants to provide fingerprints to dissociate themselves from the person with a conviction where there is a dispute regarding identity. Mr C refused to provide his fingerprints, which meant the dispute was unnecessarily protracted.

We found there had been no maladministration by Disclosure Scotland and did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about her neighbour's dog barking. Ms C believes her neighbour is keeping more dogs at their home than they have permission for. She told us she felt the council did not take her concerns seriously and they did not follow the procedure they advertise on their website. The council responded to her complaint and told her that the Safer Neighbourhood Team does not deal with dog barking. The council advised Ms C that she has the option to pursue private legal action.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council failed to take the appropriate action in line with their policies. The council were not able to take further action as they required independent evidence of the dog barking. We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation did find the information provided on the council's website was out of date. They informed us that they had already made some changes, but we found that there was still come incorrect information on the website and we asked that they send us evidence that they have corrected all of the conflicting information.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had advised him to submit a building warrant application without first reviewing information he had previously submitted. He also complained that the council accepted his building warrant application before ensuring that all necessary information had been submitted. He was also concerned that, once the building warrant application had been submitted, it took the council a considerable time to issue his building warrant. He felt this delay was unreasonable.

The council responded to Mr C's complaint and explained that, because his plans included a drainage system which was untested in the UK, the council were unable to assess this aspect of the application at the pre-warrant stage and this was why Mr C was encouraged to submit his application for a building warrant. They acknowledged that following the submission of the application it took a considerable time for the building warrant to be issued. However, they explained that this was because they had to consult with other external agencies to seek opinions on the suitability of the drainage system. As soon as they obtained responses from these consultees, they approved the building warrant. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We considered the information provided by both parties. We noted that the drainage system proposed was new and untested, and we noted the considerable work undertaken by the council to seek approval for this system. We were satisfied that it was reasonable for the council to advise Mr C to submit his warrant application to allow the drainage issues to be considered in more detail and we noted the time taken for the council to obtain responses from consultees. We did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter and, as a result, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who owns a commercial property, complained about the way the council had handled his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring commercial property.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the other premises. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council has a legal responsibility under the Environmental Health Act 1990 to investigate complaints of noise and to take action where they determine that a statutory noise nuisance exists. We found that the council had investigated the complaints of noise nuisance and had decided that there were no grounds to take statutory enforcement action. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision and the basis upon which they had exercised their judgement in this case. As such, based on the evidence available and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide a full and reasonable response to his complaint. We found that while the responses were outwith the timescales detailed in the complaints handling procedure, the council had met with Mr C and had provided a reasonable response to his representations. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had decided to withdraw the services of their noise pollution team until suitable insulation had been installed. We found that the council had decided, after investigation, that the noise problems were being caused by ineffective noise insulation between the two premises and that, until such time as sound insulation works were carried out, they would not respond to further noise complaints. This was a discretionary decision for the council to take and we found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision to Mr C. Based on the available evidence and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C is a council tenant and she reported a number of incidents of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour to the council. Ms C complained that the council failed to address her complaints about her neighbour's anti-social behaviour within a reasonable timescale. The council advised Ms C they can only investigate the anti-social behaviour if they have corroborating evidence. Our investigation found that the council did investigate Ms C's complaints correctly. When Ms C raised further reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour the council obtained witness statements from other neighbours which corroborated Ms C's complaints. The council met with the neighbour and issued her with a written first warning. The neighbour subsequently moved out of her property. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C agreed to have insulation works carried out to her property from funding provided by a Scottish Government scheme. Mrs C complained to the council about works that were still outstanding and the standard of work carried out to her property. Mrs C was particularly concerned that her windows would not open properly.

Our investigation found that the council did not have a direct technical role in ensuring the works carried out on this project were completed to a reasonable standard, as they had engaged the services of a managing agent for the project. We found that when issues were raised, the council took the appropriate steps, within their remit, by engaging with a managing agent to ensure that works were carried out to an appropriate standard. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant planning permission for an equestrian centre close to his home. In particular, he said that objections to the development were not properly considered and that it should have been treated as a 'bad neighbour' development (a development that could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties). Mr C also said that the siting of the proposed development was not in accordance with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. However, the council maintained that none of this was the case and that the application had been considered reasonably and appropriately.

We obtained independent planning advice and this showed that while all the objections made to the plans had not been reproduced in full in a committee report for the attention of councillors who were making the decision, it was not reasonable to do this. However, the report made it clear that the summaries produced should be read in conjunction with the full text which was available via a weblink. We further found that it was a matter of judgement for the planning authority whether or not a development constituted a 'bad neighbour' development having regard to the wider public interest. While the council took the view that it was not a 'bad neighbour' development, and did not advertise it as such, they had, nevertheless, advertised the proposals. Even if the council had considered the development to be a 'bad neighbour' development, the advert placed would have satisfied Scottish Government regulations. Finally, we found that the report associated with the application assessed the proposals against the LDP policies and while the application did not comply with all aspects of the LDP, the council had considered other relevant policies and material considerations which justified approval. The report had explained the reasons why such a conclusion was reached. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided by her medical practice for her back pain. She said that she was not appropriately investigated or diagnosed, and that there was a delay in her being referred for a scan.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that when Mrs C presented with back pain, she was appropriately assessed and examined, and that appropriate action was taken as a result of these assessments. We also found that she was referred for a scan within two and a half weeks of presentation. We found that the care and treatment provided by the practice was reasonable and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.