Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of reports of anti-social behaviour that she had made about one of her neighbours. Mrs C felt that the council had failed to take sufficient steps to address her neighbours behaviour based on the information that was available to them.

On investigation, we found that the council had followed their policies and procedures and appropriately investigated Mrs C's reports. However, they were limited in the action they could take, as Mrs C's neighbour was at that time believed to be a private homeowner. During the investigations, it came to Mrs C's attention that her neighbour may be privately renting the property and she reported this to the council. She did not have contact details for her neighbour's landlord and there was no record that the property was privately rented under the landlord registration scheme. This meant that the only options available to the council were to ask Mrs C to continue reporting any further incidents to build a body of evidence and refer both parties to mediation. However, Mrs C chose not to make any reports and did not feel it was appropriate to take part in mediation, so the council closed the case.

As the council had correctly followed their policies and procedures, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council about their failure to respond to her requests for repairs and concerns about dampness in her home. She also complained that the council failed to carry out appropriate repairs to her garden fence. In response to Ms C's reports of damp, the council investigated the damp and carried out a number of repairs, however, the problem persisted. It was later discovered that the leak causing the damp was coming from a boiler pipe and this was repaired. The council assessed the repair to the fence as a low priority and only carried out small repairs until the full repair could be completed. Ms C was experiencing complaints from her neighbour as her dog was entering his garden through the fence. She believed that if the council had repaired the fence sooner she would not have had such a difficult relationship with her neighbour. Ms C was unsatisfied with the service she had received from the council, and brought her complaints to us.

Our investigation found that the council responded to Ms C's request for repairs within the specified timescale, as per their policy. We found the council took the appropriate steps to investigate the source of the leak and damp, and repaired it without delay. Our investigation also found that the council assessed the repair to the fence as low priority and reminded Ms C of her responsibilities as a dog owner to prevent her dog from entering her neighbour's garden, which in our view was reasonable. We found no evidence that the council failed to carry out the repairs. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C, who has multiple sclerosis (MS) and cognitive/mental health difficulties, said that the council failed to take these matters into account when dealing with her housing transfer. She said that as a consequence, she felt pressured and suffered a breakdown. She said she felt that she was camping in her new home which was unsuitable. She further complained that she was held responsible for repairs to her former home, which was unreasonable.

In response to her complaint, the council said that they had acted in terms of Mrs C's request for single storey accommodation which was suitable for wheelchair access, but that in the 12 years of her being a council tenant prior to her visit to their offices, they had been unaware that she had any medical needs. It was at this time that Mrs C advised of her MS. However, she made no mention of other illnesses or problem for which she required support. Mrs C was subsequently allocated new, ground floor accommodation which she accepted, and shortly afterwards made an application for support mentioning her cognitive and memory problems. Two support staff were allocated to her and worked with her for over a year. They made over 60 visits and she was also helped with her rent. While Mrs C qualified for a removal grant, the council said that this was reduced to take into account repair costs required to put her former home into a lettable condition.

We made further enquiries of the council and found that after Mrs C first advised the council of her request to move, she attended their offices ten months later to confirm her request. The application form she completed indicated that she had MS but no further need for support. It was only after she accepted the offer made to her that Mrs C revealed the extent of her illnesses and her associated needs. Support officers were allocated to help her for an extended period of time and there was no evidence that she had been put under pressure to accept the offer made to her or to rush her move. We also found that on leaving her former home repairs had been outstanding, the costs of which had been deducted from her removal grant in accordance with existing council policy. Mrs C's complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained that his son was not receiving his entitlement of 600 hours a year of free nursery provision and that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the council had followed their policy correctly and that, although there was a small shortfall in the hours provided, they had made efforts to offer additional hours to make up the shortfall. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that there were some aspects of the complaints handling that could have been better, and we have drawn this to the council's attention. However, overall we considered that their complaints handling was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association responsible for the development she lived in had failed to undertake an appropriate consultation of fellow tenants regarding proposed changes to services. She also complained about the tone of communications and the way some of the meetings were handled by members of staff.

The association responded to the complaint outlining the consultation process and the steps they took to consult with tenants on the proposed changes. They considered that they had carried out an appropriate consultation and that the communications had been tailored to the tenants at the development. With regard to the exchanges during meetings, the association considered that its staff behaved appropriately. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and brought her complaints to our office.

We obtained information from Mrs C together with evidence from the association. We found that the association had adopted a range of communication methods and offered a number of avenues for tenants to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw evidence that tenants' concerns were considered at a management level. Therefore, we concluded that the association had taken reasonable steps to consult with its tenants on changes to the services within the development.

With respect to the association's handling of Mrs C's complaint, and in relation to the conduct of their staff at meetings, the evidence showed that the association had conducted a proper investigation and had come to an appropriate conclusion regarding Mrs C's complaint. The association had provided a full response to Mrs C within their timescales. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained about her contact with NHS 24 when she phoned them about her late mother (Mrs A). Specifically, Ms C said that NHS 24 unreasonably delayed in answering her call and in assessing Mrs A's condition. Ms C also said that NHS 24 failed to take appropriate action in response to Mrs A's symptoms, as they did not immediately call an ambulance for Mrs A, even though she had a history of sepsis.

During our investigation we took independent advice from an out-of-hours practitioner. We found that there was no unreasonable delay in answering Ms C's call, or in assessing Mrs A's condition. We found that sepsis cannot be diagnosed over the phone. We considered that NHS 24 took appropriate clinical action in response to Mrs A's symptoms, by arranging an urgent out-of-hours GP visit. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care provided to her father-in-law (Mr A) during a call to NHS 24. Mr A reported that he had been suffering with a cold and cough for five days with symptoms including dizziness, pain in the chest area and a fever. He had also been sick and, while he could drink water, he had not taken his medications. The NHS 24 call handler took details from Mr A and passed these on to a pharmacist. The pharmacist recommended that he buy a medicine to help suppress his cough and allow him to take his other medication. Mr A was also advised on what to do should his condition worsen.

Mr A had further contact with the out-of-hours services the following day. He was later admitted to hospital and died as a result of sepsis (blood infection). Ms C complained about Mr A's first call with NHS 24 as she felt that he had not received appropriate advice or care.

We took independent advice from a practitioner experienced in out-of-hours services. The advice we received was that the care and treatment recommended were reasonable on the basis of the information that was available to the call handler and the pharmacist. The adviser considered that appropriate safety advice had been provided by NHS 24 on what to do if Mr A's condition should worsen. No failings were identified in the way that Mr A was managed by NHS 24 and therefore we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the failure of staff at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh to identify that he had sustained a fracture of his spine after a fall at home. It was only when Mr C attended an appointment with a clinician six months later that he was told about the fracture. Mr C wanted to know why the fracture was not identified sooner as this would have allowed him to receive additional treatment.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from an adviser in emergency department medicine and an adviser in radiology. We found that the imaging which was carried out when Mr C attended the hospital immediately after his fall showed subtle signs of a fracture of Mr C's spine. However, this was with the benefit of hindsight. We concluded that, due to the subtle findings which were evident, it was not unreasonable for the staff who reviewed the imaging at that time not to have identified the fracture. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained to us that, when she attended her local opticians, she reported symptoms of flashing lights in her left eye. The optometrist said there was nothing to worry about and did not offer her a follow-up appointment. When she saw another optometrist six months later, she was urgently referred to the eye hospital where it was discovered she was blind in her left eye. Miss C said that the first optometrist should have taken her concerns seriously.

We took independent advice from an adviser in optometry and concluded that the first optometrist had provided a reasonable standard of care. This optometrist had seen Miss C on two occasions. At the first appointment there was no record that Miss C had reported flashes in her left eye. Her vision had deteriorated from her last annual check-up, however there was nothing to suggest that Miss C should have been referred to a hospital specialist at that time.

At the second appointment two months later, it was noted that Miss C had reported flashes in her left eye and was worried about going blind. The optometrist offered to perform a dilated examination (detailed eye examination following administration of eye drops) but Miss C declined the offer. The adviser noted that although there was no explanation as to what the optometrist felt was the cause of the flashes, there was no clinical evidence of additional problems or a need for a specialist referral. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we found that the first optometrist should have arranged for Miss C to attend an earlier recall for the recent onset of flashes in line with the local referral protocol. This would have resulted in an earlier check-up, which would have been in advance of Miss C's appointment with the second optometrist. We offered some feedback on this to the opticians.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the treatment she received when she attended the emergency dental clinic at Wishaw General Hospital. Mrs C was experiencing pain from a left molar tooth and was scheduled to have root canal treatment carried out by her own dentist. Mrs C contacted NHS 24 and explained the problems she was experiencing and they made her an appointment at the clinic the following day. When she attended the clinic she said the dentist read the NHS 24 referral note, asked her a few questions, numbed her mouth, removed a nerve in a tooth, and put in place a temporary filling. When Mrs C returned home, the anaesthetic began to wear off and she looked in her mouth to discover the dentist had treated the wrong tooth and not the one which was scheduled to have root canal treatment. As a result she had to attend another NHS facility for emergency treatment on the correct tooth.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general dentistry and concluded that the dentist had taken note of Mrs C's dental history and the information contained in the NHS 24 referral, and had conducted an appropriate examination of her mouth. We found that the dentist had identified a tooth which was causing pain and that appropriate treatment was provided. We felt it was reasonable for the dentist to have treated the tooth which he had identified as causing a problem. While the tooth which was treated was not the one scheduled for root canal treatment, there was nothing to indicate that the tooth was incorrectly treated. We did not uphold the complaint.