Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the medical practice failed to provide her mother (Mrs A) with appropriate clinical treatment for her reported symptoms. Mrs C said that by the time Mrs A had been referred to hospital, she was found to have severe sepsis (blood infection). Mrs C said the GPs did not examine Mrs A fully and failed to admit her to hospital sooner.

We obtained independent GP advice. We found that the GPs who visited Mrs A had on a number of occasions said to Mrs A that her blood tests and presentation were concerning and that hospital admission or further investigation was advised. However, we found that Mrs A declined the offer of a hospital admission on three occasions.

Summary

Mr C complained about the medical practice on behalf of his mother (Mrs A). Mrs A was discharged from hospital and given three new medications. On learning of these new medications, the practice decided to carry out a review of Mrs A's prescriptions, as this would result in her being prescribed 18 different medications a day.

Mrs A's GP phoned Mrs A's daughter (Mrs B) to discuss the medications as they considered that these new medications were not necessary and may cause side effects that would exacerbate Mrs A's existing conditions. Mrs B felt that the GP's manner was callous and uncaring and that the content of the call was inappropriate. Following the call, the practice decided to prescribe the medications in line with the request from Mrs A's respiratory consultant.

However, this call led Mrs A's family to decide that they would change GP practices. Mrs A died before the new practice was able to arrange Mrs A's medications.

On investigation we found that there was some discrepancy in the information available to the practice, caused by a delay in the hospital sending them Mrs A's full discharge letter. This meant that they were not in possession of the consultant's rationale for providing the new medication and had to carry out the review based on the medical history they were aware of.

Our adviser considered the relevant medical records and concluded that it was reasonable for the practice to carry out a review of Mrs A's medications in the circumstances. They also considered the conclusions reached in the review to be reasonable, based on the information available to them at that time.

On reviewing the records we were unable to see any evidence that the content or manner of the call in question was unreasonable. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the university's handling of her termination of studies, their consideration of her extenuating circumstances and her reasons for not disclosing them earlier. She also complained about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

In relation to all three matters we found no evidence that the university had failed to follow their policies. Without evidence of administrative failure, we could not question the university's decisions in these matters. We did therefore not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of an organisation regarding Business Stream's failure to backdate overpayments dating back to 2002. After a survey was carried out in 2014, the organisation was fitted with a new water meter, the standing charge for which was almost £6,000 a year lower than it had previously been. Mr C complained that the organisation had understood from correspondence received in 2002 that Scottish Water had committed to replacing the meter with one of correct size, and said that the organisation had assumed this to have taken place.

Having reviewed the correspondence of 2002, we were satisfied that further communication between the organisation and Scottish Water would have been necessary before the survey and installation were carried out. The organisation had the opportunity to follow up but chose not to. They also enquired about a meter survey in 2009 but did not follow up on Business Stream's response.

With regard to whether Business Stream had unreasonably failed to backdate payments in respect of fixed charges, we found no maladministration and Business Stream had followed their policy. Accordingly, we did not uphold that complaint.

Mr C also complained about Business Stream's handling of the organisation's complaint. We found that responses were sent without delay and that Business Stream's position remained consistent throughout, and we therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's social work department did not investigate his complaint, as he submitted it after their deadline. We found that Mr C did submit his complaint after the council's deadline, and that the council had followed their procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council was allowing his neighbour, who had applied for planning permission and built a garage in his garden ground, to use the garage as residential accommodation. He complained that they should not allow his neighbour to do so and also that the building did not meet the required building standards.

In responding to the complaint, the council had explained that although his neighbour had planning consent for a domestic garage, it was for his neighbour to decide how to use the building providing it was not a separate residential unit and its use was incidental to the existing use of the main house. They also confirmed that the neighbour had submitted a building warrant application, with supporting plans, and the building had been inspected by building control officers and a completion certificate issued.

We were satisfied that the council were correct in that the use of the garage as overspill accommodation for family and friends was incidental to the existing dwelling house and was, therefore, a permitted use under the existing planning consent. We were also satisfied that the council did ensure that the correct process was followed in ensuring that the current building standards were met. As we did not find evidence of administrative or service failure in the way these matters were dealt with, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to reasonably investigate and respond to complaints she raised about her exclusion from a communal area within the residential development in which she lived.

We found evidence that the association carried out a suitable investigation after Mrs C complained about the decision. We found the association had taken sensible and sensitive steps to bring about a resolution. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association were unreasonably seeking to recover monies from him following his termination of the tenancy. The association were claiming monies to carry out repairs to the property and to redecorate. In addition, they had applied charges for cleaning both the inside of the property and the garden. Mr C was also unhappy that the association had not refunded rent he paid in advance at the commencement of his tenancy.

The association had explained that when Mr C terminated his tenancy, they had inspected the property and noted that he had not cleared the property, as he was required to do, that a number of doors needed replacing and that the entire property required redecoration. As Mr C was required to leave the property in reasonable condition at the end of his tenancy, the association were seeking to charge the costs of these repairs to him. They also advised that they did not intend refunding any rent to him.

We noted that the property was in a very poor condition when Mr C departed. We noted that he had accepted that the property was in a good condition when he took on the tenancy and we also considered Mr C's responsibility, under the tenancy agreement, to ensure that the property was in a reasonable condition when the tenancy was terminated. We were satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that he had left the property in a poor condition and that the association were entitled to seek to recover these reasonable costs from him. We also noted that there was a credit balance on his rent account but that the association intended to apply this to the outstanding charges. As we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably in attending to this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her father (Mr A) when he attended his medical practice with urinary problems. Tests and investigations indicated prostate cancer that had spread to Mr A's bones and he was admitted to hospital shortly after. Mr A's condition deteriorated significantly due to sepsis (a bacterial infection of the blood) and he died a few days later. Miss C complained that the practice failed to properly investigate Mr A's symptoms, that the treatment decisions were unreasonable and that the family's concerns were not taken seriously.

We took independent advice from a specialist in general practice. We found the standard of care and treatment provided was reasonable, including the investigations carried out and Mr A's referral to hospital. We did not find that the practice failed to take seriously the concerns of Mr A's family. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a GP at the medical practice failed to refer him to hospital for a specialist opinion when he reported symptoms of feeling a severe crack in his chest and had severe coughing and difficulty in breathing. He showed the GP bruising on his chest and the GP prescribed antibiotics and painkillers, took blood tests and referred Mr C to hospital for an x-ray.

Four months later, Mr C continued to have health problems and was told by the hospital that an x-ray showed he had three broken ribs. Mr C said the GP should have referred him for a specialist opinion when he reported his symptoms at the consultation.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser and concluded that the GP had taken Mr C's symptoms into account and that it was appropriate at that time to reach a diagnosis of pneumonia and prescribe antibiotics and refer for an x-ray. There was no indication that a specialist referral was required.

We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.