Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their daughter (Miss A) was not provided with reasonable university accommodation for her specific health needs when she needed to move flats during term time.

The university provided Miss A with a flat which they said was suitable for her. However, they did accept that they did not have relevant information about Miss A's requirements available to them when they checked the accommodation system because of an issue with information-sharing between departments. This has subsequently been resolved. The university worked hard to find alternatives for Miss A and support her through other services. For these reasons we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to follow the proper procedure prior to taking the decision to return him to closed conditions from the open estate (less secure prison conditions). In particular, Mr C said the SPS had not issued certain paperwork to him or given him the opportunity to put forward representations before the final decision was made.

We reviewed the information Mr C provided in support of his complaint and we also obtained information from the SPS. In addition, we reviewed the risk management and progression guidance which sets out the policy and procedure that prisons should follow when they are considering returning a prisoner to closed conditions. Having done that, it was clear that the SPS had followed the correct process prior to taking the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions. He was issued with the relevant paperwork and he was given an opportunity to make written representations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to investigate within a reasonable timescale a complaint about his neighbour conducting a business from their home. He also complained that the council had failed to respond to his complaints. He said that the council's decision that there had been no breach of planning control had been made without all the facts required to make an evidence-based decision.

We took independent planning advice which stated that the council could exercise its discretion when deciding whether a breach of planning control had occurred. Additionally, it was not unreasonable for the council to have decided how much weight to give to information submitted by Mr C, as opposed to the evidence gathered by its own offices. We found the council had conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation and whilst there had been delays, these had been due to engagement with government agencies over which the council had no control. We also found the council had reached a reasonable decision based on the evidence available to it.

We found that although the council had responded to Mr C's complaints, it had not done so in a way that made it clear that the response was part of the complaints process, rather than the wider correspondence Mr C was having with the council. The council had recognised this when reviewing their investigation and taken action to address this failure.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour.

Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise.

We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended the chest clinic at Ninewells Hospital with shortness of breath. He said that he was told by the doctor at the clinic that he would be referred for an echocardiogram (a scan used to look at the heart and nearby blood vessels) and an exercise test and that it would be four to six weeks until the tests were carried out. Mr C said that when he phoned the board four weeks later, he was told there was a 28-week waiting time for the echocardiogram/exercise test from date of referral.

Having complained to the board about the delay and received no response, Mr C arranged to have the echocardiogram/exercise test done privately and it was carried out that month. Mr C said that two weeks after the test, the board advised him that he would be given an appointment for the test in two weeks' time. Mr C said that had he known this he would not have arranged the test himself. Mr C also complained that the board unreasonably refused to pay the costs of the test he obtained privately.

We obtained independent medical advice on the complaint from a consultant physician in respiratory and general medicine. The adviser said that in Mr C's case, the echocardiogram and exercise tests would be considered routine, rather than urgent. The adviser said the original waiting time given by the doctor of four to six weeks would have been given in good faith and as the test would be provided outwith his own department, they would probably not have been aware of the actual wait. The adviser said a 28-week wait for the test was undesirable but was an unfortunate consequence of resourcing issues at the board.

Whilst it was understandable that Mr C was anxious to determine the cause of his symptoms and therefore arranged for the tests to be done privately, we considered it was not unreasonable for the board to refuse to pay the costs of Mr C's private treatment.

Summary

Ms C's partner (Mr A) collapsed. He was treated by a paramedic and transported to hospital, where he later died. Ms C complained that Mr A's mobile phone went missing.

Our investigation focused on the actions taken by the Scottish Ambulance Service to locate the phone or to try to find out what happened to it. Although they did not find the phone, we were satisfied that reasonable efforts were made to investigate this matter.

Summary

Mr C complained that the medical practice unreasonably failed to offer his son (Mr A) a referral for varicose vein surgery. Mr C was concerned that this was affecting Mr A's mental health. He was of the view that the practice were refusing to refer him for surgery because of Mr A's mental health problems.

We took independent clinical advice. We found that the practice had carried out a proper examination of Mr A and had noted that his varicose vein was not causing him discomfort. As a result of this, the practice were correct in following the board's guidance on the treatment of varicose veins which said that in instances such as this, varicose veins should be treated conservatively and surgical referrals should not be made. As a result, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C attended her dentist and reported mild discomfort in an upper tooth. Following an examination including x-rays, Miss C was advised that she required either extraction or root canal treatment of the tooth. Miss C chose to proceed with the root canal treatment which was carried out a few weeks later. Afterwards, Miss C experienced pain and swelling that resulted in her attending at the local out-of-hours service, where she received antibiotics for an abscess. Miss C returned to the dentist and was unhappy with the follow-up service.

After taking independent dental advice we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found no failings in the care and treatment that Miss C was provided with. The advice we received was that the treatment provided was appropriate and that the risk of the abscess had been covered in the risks and benefits information provided to her.

Summary

Mr C attended his medical practice with a persistent cough. He was referred for a chest x-ray and breathing tests. His x-ray was clear but he was unable to complete the breathing tests. Mr C's symptoms worsened so he made a further appointment and was prescribed an inhaler. His symptoms further worsened so he made another appointment and was prescribed a different inhaler.

Mr C began to experience hoarseness and a feeling of blockage in his throat. He made an appointment with a different GP, who requested blood tests and x-rays and made an ear, nose and throat (ENT) referral. A biopsy confirmed Mr C had throat cancer. Mr C complained that the initial GP had failed to provide him with appropriate treatment in view of his presenting symptoms.

We sought independent medical advice. They found that the care provided by the practice was of a reasonable standard and was in line with national guidelines. We accepted the adviser's view and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment that her partner (Mr A) received at Hairmyres Hospital. Mr A experienced a range of different symptoms and was seen by doctors from various specialisms as a result. He also attended at the A&E department on a number of occasions. Miss C and Mr A were concerned that no diagnosis was reached for Mr A's symptoms and a complaint was made to the board. Miss C was dissatisfied with the response.

After taking advice from a consultant physician and a consultant in emergency care, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint about diagnosis. The advice we received was that the board had carried out all appropriate investigations in the period covered by the complaint and that no physical cause for Mr A's symptoms had been identified.

We also did not uphold the complaint about the board's response to the concerns raised. We found that while this was brief, it addressed the issues raised.