Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was receiving his medication from a prison health centre nurse. The nurse considered that Mr C was concealing his medication. After consultation with a GP, Mr C's medication was removed. Mr C was given a review appointment with the GP and an alternative medication was prescribed.

Mr C complained that the medication was removed with immediate effect on an unproven allegation and that the alternative medication prescribed was inappropriate. We found that the medical staff had acted appropriately, did not have a requirement to prove an allegation before medication was removed, removed the medication appropriately and provided a reasonable alternative.

Summary

After a recurrence of cancer, it was agreed that Mr C's bladder and prostate would be removed. He had a pre-operative session about a stoma (a surgically made pouch outside the body) and his surgery was carried out a few days later. Mr C appeared to be recovering well, but he then began to suffer problems with his stoma leaking. He complained that this was as a consequence of the board not providing him with reasonable care or aftercare in relation to the stoma. It was the board's view that they had provided appropriate care to Mr C.

We took independent advice from a specialist pelvic cancer surgeon and we found that all of Mr C's care and treatment had been in accordance with relevant guidance. He had had significant problems after his operation but the board had taken all reasonable and appropriate efforts to resolve these. While it was very regrettable that Mr C had to endure difficulties which affected the quality of his life, there was no evidence of poor care. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C's organisation was appointed to manage a university's utility bills. Mr C queried the charges applied by Business Stream at one of the university's premises. The university's drainage charges were based on the rateable value of the premises, as determined by the local council regional assessors. Following an appeal, the assessors had greatly reduced the rateable value, leading to a reduction in the university's drainage charges. However, Mr C complained that Business Stream had backdated the lower rates to the date of the assessor's decision, rather than the 'effective date' which the assessor had stated for the changes. He considered that the lower rates should have been backdated a further 12 months.

Having reviewed relevant water industry rules, we were satisfied that Business Stream appropriately backdated the lower rates to the start of the financial year in which the appeal was upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained about unreasonable delay by the prison in transferring him to a prison where he would have the chance to do work placements in the community. Our investigation revealed that there had been delay but that this had been unavoidably caused by a backlog of prisoners who were also waiting for such a transfer. We noted that Mr C did obtain his transfer and that the new prison brought forward their consideration of him for work placements by two months to help avoid further delay. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint on behalf of her stepson (Mr A). He was unhappy with Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC)'s response to his service complaint about the way they dealt with a complaint about Police Scotland. In particular, Mr A said that in replying to his concerns, PIRC failed to follow statutory guidance and provided unreasonable responses about their failure to request CCTV footage and their recommendations.

We investigated the complaint and we found that although there were some minor discrepancies in PIRC's final complaint report for which apologies had been made, their response to Mr A's concerns about following statutory guidelines had been reasonable. Similarly, they had provided reasonable and appropriate replies about his concerns about CCTV footage and about the recommendations they had made in his complaint against Police Scotland. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to take all appropriate steps in relation to her reports of anti-social behaviour. During our investigation we noted that the council's anti-social behaviour policy gives staff discretion to decide how to investigate complaints and to decide what action, if any, should be taken. By law, we are not able to question these decisions unless there is evidence of administrative error in reaching the decision. The council's policy indicated that mediation and noise monitoring should be considered and we saw evidence that this had happened. We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps in line with their policy, and so we did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council had not properly considered and assessed her claim for damage caused to her property. During our investigation we found that the insurers had been supplied with sufficient information by the council. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council considered, and approved, a planning application to build a house close to his own. He said that the proposed structure as shown on the plans should have alerted the council to look more closely at the application and its potential to create noise in the surrounding area. The application was advertised but no comments were made about it by neighbours or the environmental health department. It was approved by the council.

The development as built did not comply with the planning permission granted and the developer was required to regularise the situation. The developer applied to the council for a non-material variation (where amendments proposed will not significantly change the scheme that was originally granted planning permission), which was approved around a year after the initial planning application had been approved. Mr C complained that this approach was unreasonable as was the council's action on his complaints of noise. The council, however, maintained that they dealt appropriately with both applications and with the information presented to them and, after investigation, they had found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.

We took independent planning advice and found that the council had assessed the applications made in terms of current legislation and guidance. We found that Mr C's complaints about noise had been reasonably investigated and the council had sought to limit any noise between the hours of 19:00 and 09:00. We also found that his complaint had been dealt with reasonably.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association had not acted reasonably in relation to a series of anti-social behaviour incidents that he reported.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that the association had not acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association was failing to ensure that their contractors provided a reasonable stair-cleaning service in the communal areas of his home. He had reported a number of issues to them about poor cleaning.

The association acknowledged that there had been problems but noted that they had acted when Mr C raised concerns. They had either inspected the communal areas and found them to be in a reasonable condition or instructed their contractors to carry out further cleaning.

We found that the association had taken Mr C's complaints seriously and responded to each of his communications. As we found no evidence of administrative failings in the way they had dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the practice's failure to make reasonable adjustments to her medication regime regarding repeat prescriptions required following her consultation with a consultant ophthalmologist. Mrs C felt that there had been delays in the provision of eye drops and ointments.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser who said that the practice had provided details of their repeat prescription policy which was reasonable. They said the practice had acted reasonably in regard to the issue of ophthalmic prescriptions, and where they were unable to provide a prescription when requested this was due to either there being a need to clarify the prescription or due to medication supply issues. We did not uphold the complaint.