Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint about the length of time it was taking the council to complete a rendering repair at her property. She was having a longstanding problem with parts of rendering coming away and she was of the view that the council were only completing temporary repairs.

The council confirmed that they had conducted repairs as required and that the larger repair of re-roughcasting was of a cost that meant a tendering process was required. This had caused the delays in the repair being carried out as the tendering process was extended beyond its original expected deadline.

We investigated the case and from the evidence provided by the council, it was determined that repairs for rendering and guttering was classed as planned repairs and did not have a definitive timeline for completion. We considered that the council had taken Mrs C's complaints seriously as they were putting the larger, re-rendering job out to tender as this was deemed appropriate to fully resolve the ongoing repair issues she had been experiencing. We noted that delays in the tendering process were acknowledged and that re-roughcasting was due to take place for the whole block within the next financial year. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council were unreasonable in their refusal to suspend their debt-collection proceedings to allow her to provide evidence of her entitlement to a single person's discount for her council tax. She also complained that the council unreasonably refused to refund the full amount of the fees that she incurred.

We did not uphold Mrs C's concerns about the debt collection proceedings because the evidence showed that the council acted in line with the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act (1992) and took reasonable steps to check whether or not Mrs C was entitled to the single-person discount.

We also found that the council acted reasonably in respect of their refusal to refund the fees incurred by Mrs C. The council acted in accordance with their legal responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about the allocation of costs regarding two statutory notices served on her property. Mrs C said that the allocation of costs between the two notices was arbitrary and that the costs should be reduced.

Before Mrs C complained to us, the council had instructed a consultant to carry out an investigation of complaints regarding statutory notices, which included complaints about the allocation of costs. This investigation recommended that the costs of one of the statutory notices should be reduced to zero as the notice had been incorrectly served. Mrs C agreed with this, but said that some of the costs of the statutory notice that was not reduced to zero should have been apportioned to the other notice.

We found that the investigation carried out by the independent consultant had reasonably considered the complaints about the allocation of costs between statutory notices. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the council's handling of an incident involving his daughter (Miss A) and another pupil, in which Miss A ended up with facial and eye injuries and was off school for a week. Mr C did not accept that what happened was an unintentional clash of heads and he was dissatisfied with the help and support his daughter was offered at school following the incident.

We found that the school took reasonable steps to find out what happened, by speaking to the staff involved, the other pupil, and to Mr C. It was clear that there were differing accounts of what had happened. The school did not formally interview Miss A, although they did put on record what she told a teacher immediately after the incident. By the time Miss A returned to school the matter had been referred to the police by Mr C and Miss A had been interviewed by them.

We found that the council took a careful approach after the matter was reported to the police and did not do anything which might jeopardise any ongoing investigation. The evidence showed that both Mr C and the council placed importance on the investigation by the police. There was evidence that Mr C told the council on more than one occasion that a decision or conclusion had been reached by the police. We found no evidence that such a decision or conclusion was ever conveyed to the council.

Mr C felt that the council did not take Miss A's account of the events into consideration fully. We found that the evidence did not show that Miss A's account was not believed, or that the other pupil's account was considered more reliable, but rather that a definitive account of events could not be substantiated because there were no witnesses.

Mr C was dissatisfied that the council failed to take into account medical evidence of Miss A's injury. We found that the council's position, which was that such evidence should be evaluated by the police, was not unreasonable. Council officers would not have been in a position to evaluate the significance of the medical evidence. In the circumstances we decided the kind of basic investigation carried out by the council, in terms of recording the accounts of the children, was the kind of investigation we would expect.

We did not find evidence that requests for help or support for Miss A on her return to school had been ignored or denied. We found that there were support measures in place to allow Miss A to discreetly alert the teacher if feeling anxious, or to exit the class if feeling threatened. Measures were also put in place for Miss A and the other pupil to be kept apart, both in the class and out of it. A process for Miss A to check in with a trusted teacher was arranged, and school staff were asked to be vigilant. There is evidence that Miss A was referred to the school nursing service after Mr C met with the council. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to refer a decision on a planning application to the planning committee, and that the council's handling of his complaint about this matter had been unreasonable because it was responded to by the officers who had handled the application.

Mr C believed the application should have been referred to the planning committee because a previous application, which he considered was similar, had been determined by the planning committee. The council advised that the previous application had been for the removal of a planning condition for a group of buildings, while the application Mr C complained about had been for a change of use of some of that group of buildings, and that they considered that the applications were significantly different. We took independent advice from a planning adviser who reached the same conclusion, and also noted that documents submitted with the later application specifically pointed out that there were differences between it and the earlier application. We accepted the adviser's view and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had appropriately investigated the complaint and there had been no undue influence by the staff who had originally handled the applications. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C reported problems with the behaviour of his neighbour, who is a private tenant, including a number of reports of noise nuisance, verbally abusive behaviour and other anti-social behaviour. Mr C wanted the council to take steps to address his concerns with his neighbour and his neighbour's landlord, who he had also contacted directly.

Council wardens attended following reports but concluded there was not sufficient evidence of noise or other nuisance to take further action.

The council made a number of attempts to resolve the situation with preventative measures but these were not successful.

As matters escalated, the council met with Mr C and the landlord but Mr C continued to experience behaviour from his neighbour that caused him distress.

Mr C complained to the council about their lack of action and a number of specific concerns about his interactions with council staff. The council responded to his specific concerns. Mr C remained concerned that the council had not taken adequate steps to address the problems he was experiencing and complained to our office.

Our investigation considered the statutory duty placed on the council to act, as well as the council's own procedures. We found that, in the absence of evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the council had no duty to act. We also considered that the council's decision (that the evidence they had about the behaviour of Mr C's neighbour did not give them grounds for further action) was a reasonable one. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to properly investigate his concerns that staff at the company he worked for, who provided services at a council homeless unit, were falsifying time sheets and claiming to be working when they were not. He also complained that staff were displaying confidential, and inappropriate, information about residents in public view on a notice board in the facility.

We considered the available evidence and noted that the council had appointed an internal auditor who reviewed the evidence provided by Mr C to support his concerns, interviewed staff and reviewed documentation associated with the contract. The council also instructed a senior officer, who was responsible for data protection, to carry out an unannounced visit to the premises to inspect the notice boards.

The evidence demonstrated that the council had taken Mr C's concerns seriously and carried out appropriate investigations in order to ensure that the company was complying with the terms of their contract with the council. They also investigated the data security and, after inspection, were satisfied that the information held on the notice boards was displayed in staff areas to which the public did not have access and that the information itself was appropriate given the nature of the facility and the needs of the residents.

As the council could demonstrate that they had taken Mr C's complaints seriously, and carried out appropriate investigations, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Mrs A) that the housing association discriminated against her when awarding her housing allocations points.

One of Mrs A's sons has autism and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) said it would be beneficial for him to have his own room and access to a secure garden. Mrs A subsequently made an application to the association which was assessed and awarded ten overcrowding points. Mrs A asked for this to be reviewed as her son was disabled but was told that as her son had no accessibility issues he had not been awarded any points in recognition of this. In terms of the association's policy, she appealed further and was awarded points for overcrowding, the lack of a garden and for children living in flats and 30 Family and Social Points (these were based on the amount of support needed by Mrs A's son). The association explained that the maximum points for someone with accessibility issues was 100, whereas the maximum level of points for someone with a disability without accessibility problems was 90 points. The association said that this was to ensure that ground floor accommodation was retained for physically disabled people whereas other disabled people were not restricted to any type of accommodation.

Mr C said that this practice was unfair and Mrs A's application had not been reasonably assessed.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser and found the association's housing allocations policy was not unfair or discriminatory. Mrs A's application had been assessed correctly in terms of the association's current policy. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the medical practice had failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to his wife (Mrs A). He said that Mrs A had been seen by two GPs at the practice within three days with complaints of severe abdominal pain and dehydration, and that she had not taken food or fluids for a week. Mrs A deteriorated and was admitted to hospital where she underwent surgery for a small bowel obstruction. Mr C believed that the GPs at the practice should have realised that his wife was in severe pain and that she should have been admitted to hospital as an emergency.

The practice told us that on initial assessment, taking into account the medical history and examination findings, the GP did not believe there was any indication for a hospital admission at that time. The GP felt it was reasonable to diagnose a possible flare of diverticulitis (a common disease of the digestive system). The GP prescribed appropriate medication and gave advice to contact the out-of-hours service if required. The second GP visit was due to Mrs A not taking her medication due to nausea and the inability to swallow. The GP was inclined to agree with the first diagnosis and decided that Mrs A could be managed at home if she could tolerate her medication. Advice was given to assist taking the medication but that a hospital admission would be considered if Mrs A was unable to comply with the treatment plan.

We took independent medical advice from a GP and concluded that the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. It was felt that at both consultations the GPs had carried out an appropriate history and examination of Mrs A. In particular there was assessment of her abdomen so as to rule out any acute problem necessitating emergency hospital admission. The prescribing appeared to be appropriate and the working diagnosis of a flare-up of pre-existing diverticulitis was not unreasonable. In addition, Mrs A was not showing symptoms or signs which necessitated emergency hospital admission. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) by her GP practice. In particular, Mrs C felt that the practice failed to arrange appropriate investigations in view of the symptoms Mrs A presented with.

Mrs A attended the practice on a number of occasions over a two year period, and presented with symptoms including abdominal pain, vomiting and weight loss. After Mrs A's condition did not improve following an out-of-hours GP assessment, she was admitted to hospital. Several tests were performed during this admission and further tests were carried out in the months following discharge. Following these investigations, Mrs A was diagnosed with gastric cancer and she died a number of months following this diagnosis.

In response to our enquiries, the board provided a copy of a review that they had undertaken. Within the review, the board noted that Mrs A had complained of a number of symptoms, yet on each occasion Mrs A's symptoms could have been explained by non-cancer related causes. The board also noted that Mrs A's weight was relatively stable and various blood tests did not suggest anything sinister, with no evidence of anaemia or other worrying findings. The board concluded that the recorded symptoms did not suggest that a referral for gastroenterology investigation was indicated in accordance with local protocols.

We took independent advice on the case from a GP adviser. Having reviewed the records, the adviser did not consider that the practice had failed to take appropriate action in view of Mrs A's symptoms, and did not find that Mrs A's symptoms should have alerted the practice to a likely diagnosis of gastric cancer. The adviser concluded that the practice provided Mrs A with reasonable care. We accepted the adviser's comments, and for this reason we did not uphold this complaint.