Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to vary the high hedge notice that had been served in relation to his neighbour's garden. He claimed that the maximum height for the hedges in terms of the notice had been calculated with reference to there being a difference in height of one metre between his neighbour's garden and his. He claimed that the base measurements had been wrong and the hedges were higher than they ought to be, but the council insisted they were within the requirements of the notice.

The council's position was that they did not have the authority to vary the notice, since it had been superseded by an appeal to the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, they had gone to considerable lengths to try to resolve the dispute with Mr C. We found the council's position to be reasonable and we therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to assess her application for discretionary rate relief (discounts on business rates bills) in line with their obligations, and within an appropriate timescale.

Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C within a reasonable timescale, and that the decision taken was reasonable. It is for the council to determine their policy in this area, and they applied their policy appropriately. We found that the fact that Ms C had not included the exact documentation indicated on the relevant application form meant the application needed a more detailed review, and this had taken time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an outstanding statutory notice which had been issued on his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C stated that he had been advised by solicitors acting for the council that responsibility for the debt rested with the previous owner. He also said that his solicitors had been advised that the statutory notice that was the subject of the complaint had been superseded by later statutory notices.

The evidence available demonstrated that the council and their solicitors had clearly explained that the legal position was that it is the owner of the property at the date on which the council issues its recovery accounts who is liable to meet the cost of remedial works carried out. We found no evidence that solicitors acting for the council had indicated the debt rested with the previous owner. We also found no evidence that the council had advised that the statutory notice had been superseded by a later statutory notice. Evidence available demonstrated that the work detailed in the statutory notice had started prior to the later statutory notices being issued. In view of the evidence available, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of the planning application for a music festival. In particular, he complained that the council unreasonably granted the developer permission to use a particular junction as the access route for the building and break-up of the event. He further complained that the council had failed to carry out adequate environmental monitoring at this junction. Mr C was also concerned that the council agreed to extend working hours and that they failed to take enforcement action when the developer failed to adhere to the amended hours. Finally, Mr C was unhappy that the council did not attach a planning condition to the planning consent that residents affected by any disruption should be compensated by the developer.

We took independent planning advice. We were satisfied that the council followed planning procedure in determining the planning application in accordance with the terms of the relevant legislation. The advice we received was that, while the council accepted that there was some disturbance to local residents, the planning conditions imposed were aimed at safeguarding the amenity, health and safety of neighbouring residents. As such, we did not uphold the complaint that the council unreasonably granted the developer permission to use the junction.

We also found that there was no requirement on the council, as planning authority, to carry out environmental monitoring. We found that conditions had been placed on the planning consent aimed at ensuring that the amenity, health and safety of residents was safeguarded and that disturbance was minimised. We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to undertake environmental monitoring.

In relation to Mr C's concern that the working hours were extended, we found that the planning condition had allowed for a change in the hours of operation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We were also satisfied that when the alleged breach of amended hours was brought to the council's attention, they took reasonable action. As such, we did not uphold the complaint that the council unreasonably failed to take enforcement action.

Finally, we were satisfied that the council correctly explained that they were unable to apply a planning condition requiring that affected residents should receive compensation from the developer and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that an energy performance certificate (EPC) for his home was inaccurate as no assessment was carried out. The council advised him that they considered the assessment had been carried out. Mr C was dissatisfied and complained to us. The council provided us with a written statement from the assessor that he had carried out the assessment as noted on the EPC. We decided that there was no firm, objective evidence to allow us to determine whether Mr C or the council's position was correct. Given this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about her daughter's (Miss A) primary school. Miss A had recognised issues at primary school, particularly with her emotional literacy and communication skills. She also reacted badly when she made mistakes. Her head teacher had discussed these issues with Ms C and steps were agreed to help Miss A. However, her problems continued and the head teacher referred the matter to social work in terms of the Scottish Government's 'Getting It Right For Every Child' (GIRFEC) procedures. Ms C complained to the council that the head teacher discriminated against her and that the council were unreasonable in the way they dealt with her complaint.

We investigated Ms C's complaint and made further enquiries of the council. We found that GIRFEC procedures are the national approach to improve outcomes for, and to support the wellbeing of, children by offering the right help at the right time. The child is the focus for all organisations involved and the approach encourages early intervention by professionals, for instance, by social work who could provide help to avoid crisis situations at a later date. Miss A had some problems which were not resolving, although her school had involved Ms C in their efforts to help her. Accordingly, the head teacher approached social work in line with GIRFEC guidance. While Ms C considered this to be unreasonable, we found no evidence of this. We did not uphold her complaint. Although Ms C also complained about the way the council later considered her complaint, she was unhappy with the merits of the decision rather than the way the decision on her complaint had been made. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to him by his dentist. Mr C attended his dentist after experiencing pain in his teeth. After taking x-rays and performing an examination, the dentist considered there was an abscess around the roots of a tooth supporting the bridge in Mr C's mouth. When Mr C re-attended to discuss this, the dentist documented offering options including an extraction. Some weeks later, the extraction was performed.

Mr C said he was persuaded to have the extraction and questioned whether this was appropriate treatment. He also said the dentures he was provided with were uncomfortable and ill-fitting. He said he told the dentist that he ground his teeth, and that the dentist offered a bite shield, which was not provided.

After obtaining independent advice from a dentist, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that there was evidence of options being discussed in the dental records, and consent to treatment. We found the treatment option of an extraction was reasonable in the circumstances. We considered the dentist provided appropriate advice about the dentures and the need to have them re-fitted. We noted that a bite shield would not usually be provided until the condition of a patient's teeth was stable.

Summary

Ms C complained that her dentist failed to give her appropriate treatment. In particular, she complained that the dentist may have fractured the root of her tooth during root canal treatment.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a dental surgeon. The adviser said that a root canal was the appropriate treatment for Ms C's tooth, and found that the root canal had been carried out appropriately, with Ms C's root fracture happening over a year later. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late wife (Mrs A) received at Monklands Hospital. Mrs A attended the A&E department at the hospital and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. She was sent home with antibiotics and instructions to return if she still felt unwell. Mrs A returned the next day and was admitted for further investigations. Scans showed Mrs A had a large mass in her pelvis, hydronephrosis (an obstructed kidney) and pulmonary emboli (blood clots in her lungs). She was treated by urology doctors for the kidney problems, and then by gynaecologists for the mass in her pelvis, which was found to be cancerous. Mrs A was offered surgery roughly two weeks after her admission, but it was not possible to remove the cancer. Mrs A was given palliative care and died in hospital.

Mr C complained that Mrs A was not admitted when she first attended hospital, and that it took too long to diagnose Mrs A's cancer and offer her surgery. Mr C was concerned that gynaecologists did not review Mrs A until a week after her admission, and then waited for the multi-disciplinary team meeting around a week after that before making a decision about treatment.

The board responded to Mr C's complaint in writing and offered to meet with him if he wished. They explained that they considered the treatment provided was appropriate.

After taking independent emergency medicine and gynaecology advice, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the treatment provided when Mrs A first attended hospital was appropriate, and that it was reasonable to offer antibiotics first with instructions to return if her symptoms continued. We also found the time-frame for diagnosing and treating her cancer was reasonable. While Mrs A was not reviewed by gynaecologists until a week after admission, gynaecologists discussed her condition with the doctors caring for her, and requested further tests to diagnose the mass, which were carried out before the gynaecology review. We also found that it was appropriate to wait for the multi-disciplinary team meeting before deciding on treatment, given the complexity of Mrs A's case.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably failed to provide appropriate clinical treatment following her decision not to agree to a lumbar puncture procedure (a procedure where a needle is inserted into the lower part of the spine to test for conditions affecting the brain, spinal cord or other parts of the nervous system).

Mrs C was referred to a neurologist at Raigmore Hospital as she was experiencing a range of neurological symptoms. The neurologist conducted an examination, but made no definite findings. Mrs C advised that she did not wish to have a lumbar puncture. A range of scans were subsequently performed, but no definitive diagnosis was reached. Mrs C was subsequently seen by a second neurologist, who again raised the possibility of the lumbar puncture. Further scans were performed, however no definite diagnosis was reached over the course of approximately one year.

Mrs C raised a number of concerns, including that she was repeatedly pressured to have the lumbar puncture, that blood tests were not performed timeously, and that she had received inconsistent information from the two neurologists about her condition and the results of scans. The board considered that the care and treatment provided had been appropriate.

We took independent advice from a neurologist. We did not find evidence in the medical records to suggest that the neurologists acted inappropriately in offering the lumbar puncture. We found it would have been good practice for the blood tests to have been performed, but noted this was usually done before a patient would be seen by a neurologist. We found that the information provided to Mrs C about the scans and her condition was of a reasonable standard, given the complexity of her case, and that there were different views among the radiologists who reviewed the scans. On balance, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.