Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to his late wife (Mrs A) when she was a patient at Inverclyde Royal Hospital. Mrs A suffered from vascular dementia (a type of dementia caused by reduced blood flow to the brain) and was admitted to hospital for further assessment when she became confused, possibly due to a urine infection. Mrs A's condition deteriorated and she died two weeks after being admitted to hospital. Mr C said that she was not given appropriate medication within a reasonable time and that staff failed to communicate with him in a reasonable way.

We took independent medical advice from an adviser who specialises in general medicine. We found that the board provided a reasonable standard of care and treatment and that Mrs A's deterioration was recognised in a reasonable time and treated appropriately. We also found evidence that healthcare professionals had discussed Mrs A's condition with Mr C. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way his medication was handled by the prison healthcare centre, in particular that his medication had been stopped, the board had stopped his medication before investigating his complaint about the medication and that the board did not reinstate his medication.

We took independent GP advice. We found that the decision to stop Mr C's medication was taken in line with the board's and the General Medical Council's guidance on safe prescribing. Mr C had signed an agreement before starting the medication which set out the circumstances under which the medication could be stopped. We were satisfied that the decision to stop the medication was taken in line with this agreement. The evidence demonstrated that when Mr C's medication was being stopped, he was reviewed by a doctor and was offered support in line with policy. The advice we received was that the decision to not restart Mr C's medication was reasonable and in line with policy. We did not uphold these complaints.

Mr C was also unhappy with the handling of his complaints, in particular that there had been an unreasonable delay by the board in dealing with his complaint. He also said that the investigation of his complaint had been inadequate, and that the response to his complaint was unreasonable. We decided to consider these issues together. We were satisfied that the board had handled Mr C's complaint in line with the complaints process and therefore did not uphold his complaint about delay. We were also satisfied that the board had adequately investigated his complaint and did not uphold that complaint. Finally, we were satisfied that the board's response to Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison healthcare centre's decision not to prescribe him a medication used to treat insomnia was unreasonable. Mr C said that he had been prescribed the medication in his previous prison, but when he transferred to a new prison, his prescription was stopped which he said caused him significant problems. Mr C also raised concerns that this decision had been taken before he had had a chance to discuss his condition with a psychiatrist and before the prison healthcare centre had access to his community medical records. Mr C wanted to be prescribed the medication again as he felt this would improve his sleep, keep him safe, and reduce the chance that he would be put in an observation cell.

We reviewed documents provided by Mr C and the board, and we took independent advice from a psychiatric adviser. We found that the decision to stop the medication was reasonable. However, we noted that Mr C had been on this medicine for some time and that it may have been hard for him to understand why it was suddenly stopped. We found that national guidance said it should only be given for short periods and that it was therefore reasonable to stop it when there was no clear need for it. We were critical that Mr C did not get a full explanation from medical staff about why the medication was stopped, but were satisfied that it was a reasonable decision and we did not uphold the complaint.

We noted that the board did not respond well to Mr C's initial complaint as their initial response was inaccurate. We also noted that this response did not signpost Mr C to us if he was still unhappy. The board also only gave a full response to Mr C's concerns when we became involved. We were therefore critical of the board's complaints handling and we highlighted this to them.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A) about the care provided to her at Forth Valley Royal Hospital following an ultrasound scan which confirmed that she had lost her baby. Ms C was concerned that a sonographer, rather than a midwife, had told Miss A that the baby had died, and that she then had to wait for 45 minutes to see the doctor and midwife. She was also concerned that her daughter was not given a full explanation of the medication she would receive and of the process which would lead to the birth of her baby. She felt that the level of support and information provided to her daughter was inadequate. Ms C was also unhappy with what happened when her daughter returned to the hospital two days later to give birth to her stillborn baby. She felt that the support provided by the midwife was poor and this meant that her daughter eventually gave birth without the midwife being present. She was also concerned about the level of pain relief provided, documentation which suggested the baby would be cremated when this was not the intention of the family, and that the time of the birth was misreported in the records.

We took independent advice from a midwifery adviser. We found that it was appropriate for the sonographer to report the ultrasound findings to Miss A. We noted the subsequent delay in seeing a doctor or midwife, but we did not consider that this delay was unreasonable for the hospital at that time. We were satisfied that the records showed that Miss A was provided with a reasonable level of support and advice and that she was given the opportunity to ask any questions she had at that time about medication or the birth process. Following her attendance at hospital two days later, we were satisfied that the level of support provided to Miss A was reasonable. We noted the issues with the form suggesting cremation, but we also noted that the board had agreed to review this literature when they responded to Ms C's complaint. As we were satisfied that the level of care and support provided was reasonable, we did not uphold these complaints. However, we did highlight to the board the importance of ensuring that their record-keeping is accurate as we did note a discrepancy in the times recorded in the midwifery records.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A had complained to the council about anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, in particular noise and dog fouling in the garden, but felt that they had failed to properly investigate her concerns. The council advised that they had responded appropriately to all of Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour, including carrying out regular visits to the property.

During the course of our investigation we found that there had been a number of occasions where Ms A had not allowed the council officers access to her property so that they could witness the noise from her neighbour. We also found that the council had contacted the neighbour and spoke to them about the complaints. The council also visited the area a number of times to look for dog fouling, and found no evidence. We did not uphold the complaint.

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.