Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the manner in which his deceased brother's property was cleared from his home. Mr C was unhappy that an environmental clean had been conducted, meaning that many items were removed from his brother's property and not itemised in an inventory. He was unhappy about poor communication from staff and that the contractor conducting the environmental clean had left unsealed bins outside the property with his brother's belongings inside.

Though the council were the deceased's landlord, the company who were property managing the tenancy on the council's behalf responded to the complaint. They advised that their policy is that when an environmental risk is identified, a contractor is required to conduct a full environmental clean of the property, removing all items which are contaminated or present a risk. They apologised for the breakdown in communication and interviewed staff about alleged conversations with Mr C. They also apologised for the bins being left on the street and explained that the contractor had worked extra hours in an attempt to clear the property ahead of the family's visit to the property, and the bins were left outside as there was no more room on the van. This was deemed to be a failing of the contractor and an apology was made in response to Mr C's complaint to them.

We found that procedures had been followed regarding the environmental clean and it was not unreasonable that items which were contaminated or posed a risk were not recorded on an inventory. In this case, it was also recommended an environmental clean should take place as the deceased was diabetic, so there was a needle risk in the property.

As the communication between staff and Mr C arose during verbal conversations, we had no way of determining what was actually said. We found that it was a failing of the contractor to leave bins containing hazardous material on the street. However, we concluded that this was a situational error which had occurred due to a desire to clear the property in time for the family to visit and noted that Mr C had received an apology. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had wrongly invoiced him for repairs to his TV aerial. He disputed the repair and complained to the council. They explained that sub-contractors had found that the problem Mr C had reported was with his TV equipment rather than the council communal aerial, and he was therefore liable for the charge. The council produced evidence in support of their position, indicating that the work had been carried out. We found no evidence in support of Mr C's claim and accordingly did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We did not find any failings in the council's complaints handling. They had responded appropriately and provided the relevant information. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C had a family history of DVT (deep venous thrombosis, a blood clot in a vein). During her pregnancy she suffered cramps and pain in her calves. She therefore underwent a scan of her right leg. This scan was clear but because she continued to complain of pain, Mrs C underwent a further scan. Mrs C said that the scan was of her left leg, although the board said it was of her right leg. After Mrs C gave birth, a further scan confirmed a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the blood vessel that transports blood to the heart and the lungs) and a DVT in her left leg.

Mrs C complained to the board that despite her many complaints, they did not refer her to haematology (the specialism concerned with the study of blood and blood-related disorders) and that they failed to properly carry out the second scan. In response, the board said that Mrs C should have been reviewed by a senior doctor and probably referred back for a further scan. However, Mrs C still felt that the scan had been carried out incorrectly.

We obtained independent haematology advice and found that although scans were a good diagnostic tool for DVT of the upper leg, they were not as reliable for the calf. We found that an examination had not shown evidence of a clot in Mrs C's lower leg. Furthermore, the scan about which Mrs C complained had been carried out in a reasonable way and Mrs C had been reviewed on three occasions during the five days after this scan. Despite the board's own conclusion, we found that the management and care received by Mrs C following her scan was reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) by her GP practice. Mrs A had hypertension (high blood pressure) and was prescribed multiple medications for this. Ms C expressed concern that this medication was not reviewed, despite it failing to control Mrs A's blood pressure. Ms C felt that this contributed to Mrs A suffering kidney failure and heart problems.

We took independent GP advice and found that Mrs A had multiple health conditions, and that her treatment and blood pressure control were complex. The adviser noted that some of her medication was serving a dual purpose, such as controlling her blood pressure and fluid overload. The adviser considered that the practice took appropriate steps to monitor Mrs A, including active assessment of her hypertension and regular blood tests. They explained that the number of underlying conditions made it difficult to control Mrs A's blood pressure, but were satisfied that the difficulties were not due to a lack of care on the part of the practice. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board incorrectly diagnosed her as suffering from bi-polar disorder when she was admitted to hospital in 2004. She was also unhappy that they prescribed sodium valproate which she did not consider should be prescribed to someone of childbearing age.

Although this complaint related to issues which occurred some years ago and would usually be considered to be time-barred in terms of a complaint to our office, as the board had reviewed the medical records last year and advised Ms C that the treatment provided was appropriate, we agreed to look at the diagnosis and decision to prescribe.

We obtained independent advice from two advisers, one of whom reviewed the records for the period of Ms C's admission. We were satisfied that a reasonable diagnosis was made in 2004 and the decision to prescribe sodium valproate to Ms C was reasonable. As a result, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to him by the board in relation to a hip replacement procedure he had undergone at Borders General Hospital. Specifically, Mr C complained that during the operation, board staff had failed to correctly place the replacement, which resulted in several years of pain and a further operation to correct the replacement. Mr C also complained that there were unreasonable delays in investigating the cause of his ongoing pain after the original hip replacement surgery.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. We found that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr C's hip replacement had been incorrectly placed at the first operation. Therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Additionally, whilst we recognised the long time that Mr C was in pain for and the many appointments he had with orthopaedic services, we found that appropriate tests and investigations were carried out at each stage and opinions of other clinicians were sought. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C further complained that the board failed to address all of the issues he raised in his complaint to them. On review of the complaints documentation, we found that the board had provided Mr C with a thorough response to his complaint and that they had provided further clarification both verbally and in a letter when Mr C requested this. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that college staff did not take action to prevent her from being subjected to inappropriate behaviour from other students on her course.

We found that the college had taken reasonable action in line with their policy and procedures when Miss C had experienced difficulties with other students in her class. While the record-keeping at one meeting could have been more detailed, we considered overall that the college had provided Miss C with reasonable support and taken steps to address episodes of unreasonable behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to send his exam results to his personal email address, failed to consider technical problems that occurred during the course, and failed to follow their complaints procedure.

We found that exam results are always sent to a student's university email address and not to their personal email address, and no agreement was reached with Mr C to send his results to his personal email address. In relation to technical problems, there had been a problem with downloading software from the university. This was resolved by the university to enable download, and the problem was taken into account by the course's assessment board. Mr C claimed his computer and personal email account were hacked. However, it was Mr C's responsibility to have appropriate protection for his computer and email account, something for which the university could not be held responsible. Finally, we found no evidence that the university had failed to follow their complaints procedure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA)'s handling of his complaint was unreasonable, as he felt there was a lack of transparency in their response to him.

Mr C’s son’s school were meant to put in place reasonable adjustments for Mr C's son to complete an exam, but failed to do so. The school submitted an exceptional circumstances consideration request to the SQA because of the exam circumstances their failure had created. The SQA considered the request and determined that Mr C’s son would not have passed the exam. Mr C complained to the SQA that they had given contradictory information to the school about the request process, that the SQA had not followed their own procedures in considering the request, and that they did not use appropriate academic evidence to assess his son's ability.

We found that the school were bound by the SQA’s procedures on submitting a request, and the procedures were clear that it was the school’s responsibility to submit to the SQA all available alternative academic evidence for consideration. The school failed to do this and submitted only selected evidence. The SQA could only assess Mr C's son’s ability based on the evidence provided by the school. We did not see any evidence that the SQA failed to follow their procedures. It would be unreasonable to hold the SQA responsible for the school’s failings, including the school’s failure to support Mr C’s son.

We concluded that, although the SQA’s response to Mr C’s complaint could have provided some additional information, such as the greater level of detail they provided to us in responding to our enquiry, the response was an accurate reflection of their responsibilities as set out in their policies.

Whilst we appreciated the impact that the school’s repeated failings had on Mr C’s son, and that Mr C was unhappy that the SQA were unable to remedy the situation created by the school, we did not find that the SQA’s handling of Mr C’s complaint was unreasonable. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about how his generic assessment had been carried out. A generic assessment is carried out to determine what work programmes prisoners should carry out in order to progress through the prison system. Mr C complained that he had been recommended to take part in a programme without input from psychologists and which he had already completed.

We found that the Scottish Prison Service had followed the correct process in assessing Mr C. We found that the decision reached about what programmes Mr C was suitable for included the Head of Psychology and that reasonable suggestions were put forward to support him during the programme. We did not uphold the complaint.