Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not spoken to as part of the investigation when he submitted two complaints to the prison governor about an officer. Mr C said he felt that the governor had disregarded his version of events and had not investigated his complaints properly.

We looked at whether the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to investigate Mr C's complaints appropriately. The SPS told us they spoke to the officer about Mr C's complaints and he contradicted what had been said. The SPS also told us they did not interview Mr C about his complaints because they did not think it was appropriate.

In considering whether it was reasonable to not speak to Mr C about his complaints, we looked at the level of detail he provided in each of his complaints. We were satisfied that he clearly conveyed the nature of his concerns about the officer. It was clear the officer contradicted what Mr C said and we did not consider that speaking to Mr C would have assisted the SPS in reconciling the conflicting account of events. We also did not accept that by not speaking to Mr C, the SPS had disregarded his complaints or failed to investigate them properly. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C was involved with a court case that was not continued by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and complained about this to them. Ms C then complained to us that COPFS ignored her phone calls and that their communication with her was unreasonable, specifically that two letters from COPFS were contradictory.

We found that Ms C had not complained to COPFS about all of the matters she brought to us. We also found that COPFS no longer had recordings of phone calls as they were kept for a limited time. In addition, it was not within our jurisdiction to determine whether COPFS' letters were or were not accurate as a matter of law and, therefore, we could not determine whether they were contradictory in that respect. In the circumstances, we could not reach findings on Ms C's complaints and we could not uphold them.

Summary

Mr C said the council did not made reasonable arrangements to keep him informed about the education of his children. Mr C was living apart from his children in another part of the UK. We found the council strategy was supportive of parental involvement. We found the school had made reasonable arrangements to keep Mr C informed, and arranged consultations around his needs when he could not attend the usual parent consultations held twice a year.

We found evidence that the arrangements did not always work perfectly. For example, there was a delay in getting the school newsletter to Mr C when an email bounced back. There was also disagreement over three emails Mr C said were sent, which the council said the school did not receive. Whilst there were some problems with communication, we found no evidence this was the result of fault or failure on the part of the school.

We found the council's response contained an inaccuracy as it referred to a request for a meeting which had not been made. We noted that any inaccuracy in responding to complaints was unhelpful and that responses to complaints should always reflect the facts according to the evidence. However, we were satisfied that Mr C received a prompt and reasonable response to his complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C raised a number of issues regarding the handling by the council of their complaint relating to their child's school. During our investigation, we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had investigated the various issues raised by Mr and Mrs C in line with appropriate procedures and taken reasonable action based on this. We therefore did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his constituent (Mrs A) about planning applications at a site neighbouring her property. In particular, Mrs A was concerned that the council had failed to take enforcement action when planning conditions were not met in relation to engineering works and that the council had failed to issue a stop notice requiring activity on the planning site to stop when work began before planning permission had been granted. Mrs A also complained that the council had failed to take reasonable account of her concerns about the development.

We took independent planning advice and found no evidence that when the alleged breach of planning control was brought to the council's attention, they failed to investigate the matter in line with the Scottish Government's planning enforcement charter or the council's planning enforcement charter.

We also found no evidence of fault by the council when arriving at the decision not to issue a stop notice. We were satisfied that the council, in considering the application for the erection of houses on the neighbouring site, properly took into account the relevant guidance and planning policies. We found no evidence of procedural omissions by the council in the handling of the planning application. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the school's response to her concerns about how another pupil was treating her daughter, and that the council failed to investigate and respond to her complaint.

We found the school had taken reasonable action when concerns were reported to them. Though there appeared to continue to be problems, the school could only act on the information provided to them. We also found that the council's investigations were reasonable. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that after they accepted a house requiring modifications in respect of Mrs C's disabilities, the council failed to complete the work in a timely manner. They also complained that the council failed to provide them with suitable alternative accommodation for the duration of the works.

Our investigation found that Mr and Mrs C accepted the property in the knowledge that works were necessary to make it suitable. While Mr and Mrs C maintained that the work was to be done before they took entry, we found nothing to confirm this. We noted that architect's plans were required to be drawn up and surveys (including a survey for the presence of asbestos) were needed before works could be specified for tender. This would all take time and Mr and Mrs C were encouraged to apply for housing benefit to allow them to remain in their original home until the work was done. Mr and Mrs C did not wish to do this, and so moved into the new accommodation. Once work was due to go ahead, Mr and Mrs C refused entry to the workers on the grounds that they needed alternative accommodation. We found that while the works did not require the council to provide alternative accommodation, they did offer Mr and Mrs C the use of facilities in a nearby sheltered housing complex. We therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Shettleston Housing Association had unreasonably excluded him from grant funding, unreasonably charged him a £150 administration fee and unreasonably processed additional funding for 26 other home owners. Mr C said he was the owner of his home and had made a contribution to the works being carried out on his property, for which the association had informed him he was entitled to a rebate. The association had told him that work had been completed too late on his property for it to qualify for the highest level of rebate. Additionally, a second group of 26 properties had then been put forward for funding after the original deadline. Mr C had not been included in this group either. Mr C felt this was unfair, as he had received a smaller rebate than other property owners. Additionally, he disputed the dates provided by the association for completion of works on his property.

The association said that work on Mr C's property had not been completed in full until March 2013. Unexpectedly they had received a further offer of grant funding in April 2013, but had only been asked to submit 26 properties for consideration. The association emphasised that the funding for the rebate was provided as a grant by a third party and the administration of it lay outside the association's control. As a grant it was not an entitlement for residents but something the association sought to access on their behalf whenever possible. The association did not accept that Mr C had been treated unfairly.

We found evidence that Mr C's property was not ready for submission within the initial deadline due to additional work being carried out to treat rot within the property. The offer of an extended deadline was not under the association's control, nor was the restriction on the number of properties which could receive it. The association had sought to maximise grant funding for residents, but had not been able to achieve equal funding for all residents. The association's imposition of an administration charge had not been clearly explained, but was not of itself unreasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the medical practice failed to identify that her father (Mr A) had cancer. Mr A had multiple health issues and regularly attended the practice but it was not until the family eventually took him to hospital that he was diagnosed with an aggressive tumour. He died nine days later. The practice noted that there had been no change to Mr A's longstanding symptoms other than some worsening in the weeks before he died, and they did not consider that his cancer could have been detected much earlier or would have responded to treatment.

We took independent medical advice from a GP who noted that the practice had arranged relevant investigations including chest x-rays, scans and blood tests. Although Mr A's liver function test results were noted to have been abnormal in the month prior to diagnosis, the practice had already arranged a colonoscopy and the adviser did not consider that further tests were indicated at that stage. When the tests were repeated two days prior to diagnosis, they showed a significant deterioration and the practice took appropriate steps to upgrade an existing ultrasound scan referral to urgent. The adviser noted that the hospital may have separately arranged investigations themselves around this time when Mr A self-presented with his family. However, we found that the practice had by then already taken reasonable and prompt action when they identified the deterioration in Mr A's liver function results. We therefore concluded that the practice did not unreasonably delay taking steps to have Mr A's cancer diagnosed and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) about aspects of the care and treatment she received at Ninewells Hospital and Perth Royal Infirmary following an injury to her shoulder. He complained that surgery was not carried out when the injury was first diagnosed and that when surgery was carried out, Mrs A was given inaccurate information about the reduction in her pain. Mr C also complained that Mrs A was not warned that general anaesthetic could cause memory loss.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and found that the decision to initially manage Mrs A conservatively (without surgery) was reasonable practice. There was evidence to show that Mrs A had consented to surgery after she was informed of the appropriate risks.

We also obtained independent advice from a consultant anaesthetist in relation to Mrs A's concerns about not being warned about the potential risk of memory loss following general anaesthetic. They noted that it is not standard practice to discuss this with patients prior to surgery because it is not considered to be the type of risk that falls into either of the two categories set out in the General Medical Council's guidance on consent. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.