Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C's partner (Mr A) was admitted to the A&E department at Forth Valley Royal Hospital, where he died. Mr A's mobile phone was not listed among his valuables and could not be found. Ms C made a formal complaint to the board but the phone could not be located. Ms C said that the phone contained images of her late partner and their child that could not be recovered.

Our investigation focused on the efforts made to locate the phone and/or to find out where and when it had gone missing. We were satisfied that, although ultimately unsuccessful, the board took reasonable actions to try to locate the phone.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A). He said that she had suffered from a complex series of health complaints for a number of years. He also said that despite the significant impact this had had on Mrs A and her family, the board had failed to provide a satisfactory diagnosis or a reasonable standard of care and treatment. Mr C said that Mrs A's orthopaedic, neurological and rheumatology care had all been of an unacceptable standard.

We took independent medical advice on Mrs A's care and treatment. The adviser said that Mrs A had presented with a complex set of symptoms which could not be explained by a single diagnosis from any of the specialists who reviewed her. Mrs A had been reasonably diagnosed with a neurological condition but had been unwilling to accept this diagnosis as she felt it reflected on her mental health. Mrs A was referred for further specialist review which provided a diagnosis of arthritis. The adviser said there had not been sufficient evidence available previously to make this diagnosis.

Overall we found Mrs A had been provided with a reasonable standard of care and treatment. Although a diagnosis was subsequently made, it did not explain the majority of her symptoms and there was no evidence that it should have been made earlier by the board. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to enforce Prison Rule 36 on smoking.

We found the prison took a pragmatic and proportionate approach to enforcing the prison rules regarding prisoners who are found to be smoking, while at the same time acknowledging prisoners' addiction to smoking and trying to help manage it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council handled her concerns about a breach of planning control by her neighbours who had built a balcony. She complained that it did not meet the minimum distance requirements for privacy. Ms C also pointed out that while the council said they followed guidance, the guidance did not refer to balconies. She questioned therefore how the council could say they followed guidance.

In addition, Ms C pointed out that the council elected to use window to window minimum distance measurements for assessing privacy, but she noted that the council themselves pointed out that the minimum distances were not met.

We requested all of the relevant information from the council and also sought independent planning advice. We noted that, prior to our involvement in this case, the council had acknowledged their failings and had taken action to remedy them. In particular, the council recognised that their Guidance to Householders was insufficient with regard to balconies and privacy and accepted that it should be reviewed.

The adviser confirmed that the use of enforcement powers is a discretionary matter for the council. The adviser also concluded that the council had addressed the concerns Ms C raised and that their officers applied the most appropriate guidance available to them at the time. We accepted this view and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of statutory notices issued in relation to his property.

Our investigation found no evidence that the council had failed to follow the notification process in relation to the issue of the statutory notices or that they had failed to follow procedures in relation to the decision to administer the works on behalf of owners.

While we were concerned that the council's project file was incomplete in relation to the repairs carried out, the project had been reviewed by an independent adviser appointed by the council, who was satisfied that the works carried out were within the scope of the statutory notices and the final bill issued to owners was correct. We were also aware that action had been taken by the council to improve record-keeping in relation to project files for works undertaken to comply with statutory notices.

Summary

Ms C and Mr C complained about the level of consultation carried out by the council in relation to a site planning brief issued by them proposing that an area of open space on a former school site be released, in part, for housing.

We reviewed the steps taken by the council when undertaking the consultation and also considered the procedural and legal duties imposed on the council in respect of consultation. Having done so, we were of the view that the consultation carried out was proportionate and in line with the council's responsibilities. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his sister (Miss A), a housing association tenant. He complained that the association unreasonably withdrew an offer of housing from her.

We found that the association had asked Miss A to contact them as she was being considered for a property. When Miss A contacted the association she told them that her circumstances had changed. The process was therefore stopped at that point – without an offer of housing being made – so that Miss A could let the association know about these changes and allow them to be assessed.

As there were was no evidence of an offer being made we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his late sister (Miss A) about the care that she received at the Western General Hospital, in particular that she was prescribed methotrexate (a drug to suppress the immune system) for Crohn's disease (a long-term condition that causes inflammation of the lining of the digestive system). Miss A was diagnosed with tumours in her liver and bone marrow and died around a week later. Mr C understood that Miss A had refused methotrexate in the past and was concerned that it had been given to her without her knowledge.

We took independent medical advice and found that the prescribing of methotrexate in Miss A's case was reasonable and in keeping with national guidance on the management of Crohn's disease. Miss A's Crohn's disease was complex and had been difficult to control with medication. We did not identify evidence to show that Miss A had refused methotrexate but that surgery had been offered as an alternative which she declined.

Summary

Ms C complained about a decision to reduce her thyroid medication following the results of a blood test.

We sought independent medical advice. The adviser said the change in medication dosage was reasonable and in line with guidance for managing thyroid disease.

We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that a psychiatrist failed to reach a reasonable diagnosis on the basis of her circumstances and medical history. In particular, Miss C raised concerns that the psychiatrist did not appropriately address her reported history of abuse in reaching the diagnosis. Miss C also questioned whether the psychiatrist considered other factors that would have impacted on her presentation at the psychiatric consultation. Miss C said a different diagnosis should have been reached and that the psychiatrist did not engage appropriately with her spiritual beliefs. Miss C questioned whether the diagnosis was based on an appropriate level of assessment.

The board said the psychiatrist was appropriately concerned that Miss C was suffering from psychiatric illness.

After receiving independent psychiatric advice, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found the psychiatrist appropriately considered Miss C's history and other factors impacting on her presentation at the consultation. We found that the psychiatrist conducted an appropriate assessment and that the diagnosis reached was reasonable in the circumstances.