Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with a review carried out by consultants for Scottish Canals about moorings and licence prices. Mr C sent feedback to a consultation on the review, and he complained to Scottish Canals.

We explained to Mr C that, by law, we must not investigate action relating to the determination of the amount of any rent or service charge. This meant we could not investigate the evidence base for pricing, or what berthing fees should be charged. However, we did look at how Scottish Canals handled Mr C’s complaint.

We found that Scottish Canals responded to Mr C’s complaint in line with their complaints handling procedure. We found that their responses to Mr C were reasonable. We found evidence that Scottish Canals considered Mr C’s complaint and provided reasoned and rational responses. Given this, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council on behalf of his son (Mr A) regarding the aborted sale of a council owned property. Mr C told us that the council had initially accepted his son's bid for a property they were looking to sell but, due to delays on the part of the council which led to the removal of the mortgage offer, the sale could not go ahead. Mr C was also unhappy that the council had insisted that Mr A pay for a refreshment of the home report, which was required by his lender.

On investigation, we found that there was a period of around four months between the council's acceptance of Mr A's bid and agreement on the terms of sale. The first month of this was due to a change of solicitor required by Mr A's lender. The remaining time was spent in negotiation regarding the terms of the sale, as Mr A requested a change of the boundaries, and had concerns regarding the level of environmental liability that would be placed on him under the standards terms. Throughout these discussions, the council responded to each contact within two weeks, which we considered reasonable given the level of consideration required.

With regards to the home report refreshment, this was only required on the insistence of Mr A's lender. Given this, we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to request that Mr A met the cost. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

The council advertised some land for sale and received a number of offers. Mr C, a chartered surveyor, said that his client (Mr A) made an offer for the land, which was subsequently found to be the highest offer. However, in a report to the council executive, a member of council staff recommended the sale of the land to another bidder who had offered a lesser amount. Mr C complained that the council executive was not given information on the amount of Mr A’s offer, and considered this could have resulted in a different decision being made on the sale.

We acknowledged that the report provided to the council executive was brief and lacking in detailed explanation as to why the recommended offer was considered best value - it simply stated that this was determined following analysis of ‘a number of offers’. We considered that the report could have included a more detailed explanation of why this was the case, particularly as the offer was not the highest. However, having reviewed all relevant information, we were satisfied that the council acted in accordance with their longstanding practice in only providing details of the offer considered to be best value in their report. We noted that the report indicated that a number of offers had been received, and it was open to council executive members to request further information if they wished, as one council member subsequently did. We also considered that the council based their decision about which offer/s to include in the report on a detailed consideration of all the information available, including seeking advice from relevant sources where required.

We concluded that staff did not unreasonably fail to give the council executive relevant information about the offers received for the land and we did not uphold the complaint. However, we fed back our comments about the desirability of a more detailed explanation of ‘best value’ for the council’s consideration.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained on behalf of their son. They said that the council failed to provide him with an appropriate child’s plan and that they failed to provide him with an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) application form.

Mr and Mrs C said the child’s plan contained inaccurate and out of date information. However, Mr and Mrs C could not provide any evidence to support this complaint, such as why the plan given to their son was inappropriate or why the plan was inaccurate. We found that Mr and Mrs C had an opportunity to provide comments to their son's school about the child’s plan, and that they could inform the school of any factual inaccuracies they believed there to be. In relation to the EMA form, we found that their son's name was on a distribution list for EMA letters, and that the scheme was widely publicised in the school. We did not uphold Mr and Mrs C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s response to his complaint regarding a planning application in his neighbourhood. Mr C said he could not access a copy of the application to comment on it. He felt the council did not reasonably respond to his complaint about this, and were condescending and dismissive of his concerns.

We found that the council carried out a detailed investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Their response dealt with the key issues Mr C raised in his complaint, and it was detailed and factually accurate about the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The response explained what the council did in relation to the application, acknowledged there had been a problem for Mr C accessing the application at the council’s office, and outlined how the failings the council identified would be addressed. We did not find evidence that the council’s response was condescending or dismissive of Mr C's concerns, although we accepted this was Mr C’s perception of the response. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.