Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained about her medical practice, specifically that they failed to recognise or suspect she had whooping cough given her symptoms until a blood test confirmed the condition. Mrs C told us that as a result of the failings, her health needs were not met and she posed an unnecessary risk to her family and other members of the public. Mrs C also raised concerns about the way the board handled her complaint in that a complaints manager had been involved in both supporting her and investigating her complaint.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the standard of medical care and treatment provided was reasonable. We also found that, given the review of the investigation and report was undertaken by the head of services and not the complaints manager, the complaints handling was reasonable.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A). She complained that it was unreasonable for Mrs A's GP practice to fail to diagnose her with whooping cough until a blood test confirmed this. She also complained about communication with the GPs and the impact this had on the diagnostic process.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser who specialises in general practice. We found that the standard of medical care and treatment provided to Mrs A was reasonable, and that there was no evidence of any failings. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A). Mrs A said that for a number of years she had been experiencing symptoms which had caused her concern. She attended her GP again because she had developed a rupture at her navel. Her GP made a referral for her to general surgery and she was given an appointment. However, before the appointment, Mrs A attended again at her GP and at the emergency department because of increasing abdominal pain. Her GP contacted the consultant surgeon asking if she could be seen sooner but she had already been given the first available appointment. At her hospital appointment, Mrs A was given a number of tests which showed likely peritoneal disease (disease of the lining of the stomach). After further tests, she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma (cancer that attacks the lining of the abdomen).

Ms C complained that Mrs A's GP had ignored the symptoms about which she had been complaining and that had she been referred to hospital sooner, she may have had an earlier diagnosis and her life expectancy may have improved. Mrs A complained to her medical practice, who said that she had not been a regular attendee at the practice and the majority of her symptoms had been respiratory for which she had received appropriate treatment. They added that when she presented with a hernia, she was immediately referred to hospital and that none of her symptoms had given any indication of her final diagnosis.

We took independent GP advice and found that all of Mrs A's symptoms had been investigated and treated appropriately. There had been no delay in referring her to hospital and there had been no suspicion of a cancer diagnosis to which a reasonable GP would have been alerted. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her late husband (Mr A) received from his medical practice. She said that over an eight week period, staff at the practice failed to provide her husband with appropriate clinical treatment in view of his reported symptoms. Mrs C said her husband was subsequently diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and died shortly after. Mrs C complained that the practice failed to look at, examine and listen to her husband. She complained that they were dismissive and that they took too long to recognise how ill he was. She said her husband had a past diagnosis of cancer and that this should have alerted the practice to the possibility of a return of the cancer.

We obtained independent advice on the case from a GP. We found that the care and treatment the practice provided to Mr A was appropriate. We found that Mr A's medical records did not evidence any failure in taking his history or in examining him, that Mr A's investigations and referrals were of a reasonable standard and there was not any significant delay in these being carried out.

The adviser did not consider that a history of treated cancer 37 years earlier should have alerted the practice to consider an alternative diagnosis in Mr A's case. We found that Mr A's chest x-ray, taken in hospital approximately six weeks after Mr A first attended the practice, was normal with no evidence of lung cancer. We found his case records did not contain evidence of him reporting red flag symptoms or signs to either the GP or to the hospital doctor.

We concluded that the practice did not fail to provide Mr A with appropriate clinical treatment in view of his reported symptoms and we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the medical practice had failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to his late wife (Mrs A). He said that Mrs A died from cancer and that he requested a copy of her medical records from the practice. He noted that two years prior to his wife's death she had attended the practice with an eight week history of abdominal pain. He had checked the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and this said that a CA125 blood test (a test used to diagnose ovarian cancer) should have been carried out. The blood test was not performed at the first consultation. Mr C felt that his wife had met the criteria for the test and had it been carried out, it may have identified her cancer earlier. He also said that his wife attended the practice 12 months later and again the CA125 blood test was not taken.

The guidance states that clinicians should carry out tests if a woman (especially if 50 or over) reports having any of a number of symptoms on a persistent or frequent basis (particularly more than 12 times per month). Abdominal pain is one of the stated symptoms. We took independent GP advice and found that at the first consultation, the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. It was recorded that Mrs A had reported an eight week history of right sided abdominal pain and tiredness with no change in bowel habit. Antibiotics were prescribed along with blood tests (not including CA125) with a further review. The adviser said that it was not a failing in care not to have requested a CA125 blood test as the guidance does not define 'persistent or frequent basis' in terms of length of time of having symptoms. Although Mrs A was over 50 and had symptoms for eight weeks, the guidance does not specifically state that a CA125 blood test is required in such a situation. We did not uphold the complaint, but highlighted that it would have been best practice for Mrs A to have been asked to return if her symptoms persisted following the course of antibiotics.