Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the length of time his wife (Mrs A) spent in Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. He also complained that before giving medication to Mrs A, staff had not asked him which medication Mrs A was taking prior to her admission.

Mr C also said that the medication prescribed to Mrs A had a detrimental effect on her, physically and mentally, and that the tests she underwent after her admission were unnecessary.

We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician. The adviser noted that because Mrs A was able to tell staff about her medication, there was no requirement for staff to discuss it further with Mr C. The adviser also found that the admission and the tests subsequently undertaken were appropriate and reasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not prescribed medication to treat high blood pressure and that during a home visit a GP did not diagnose a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in his leg.

Mr C had a knee replacement operation in December 2014 and requested a home visit in January 2015 as he was suffering from pain and swelling in his leg. A GP attended and examined Mr C's leg but did not find any obvious signs of DVT. A week later, Mr C had a post-operative check on his leg and the DVT was discovered and he was admitted to hospital for treatment.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from a medical adviser who was of the view that the examination carried out by the GP was appropriate and that there were no recorded signs that would have suggested DVT. The adviser stated that DVTs can develop over time and that the signs are difficult to identify in the early stages. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Following his treatment for the DVT Mr C was referred to the anti-coagulation clinic to monitor his blood, and he was prescribed Warfarin (an anti-coagulation medication) to reduce the risk of further clots for six months. During this time Mr C stopped taking the medication to treat his high blood pressure. When he was advised by the clinic to stop taking the Warfarin, Mr C requested a prescription for his blood pressure medication from the GP which he stated was not provided for seven days. The records showed that the prescription was issued on the day it was requested and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Miss C appealed to the university that she had failed her final exams due to ongoing personal circumstances. The university did not accept her appeal and Miss C complained to us.

We found that Miss C had reported personal circumstances twice in previous years of study; however, she did not continue to report them to the university as her studies progressed. It was only when she found out that she had failed her final exams that she raised the issue of personal circumstances.

Miss C did not provide the university with evidence of how her personal circumstances affected her at the time of her final exams. As the university acted in line with their procedures, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the college about the assessment of her work and asked to be moved class. The college investigated the assessment of her work, including having it re-assessed by different assessors, and determined that the initial assessment had been reasonable. The college entered into discussion with Ms C about moving class and her being re-assessed on some aspects of her work. Ms C was dissatisfied with the actions the college had taken and complained to us.

We decided that we could not consider her complaint about the assessment of her work, as it related to academic judgement. By law we cannot investigate matters of academic judgement and, therefore, we could not comment on that issue.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint about agreements she said that she had made with the college about re-assessments. We could not see any evidence that any agreements, such as those Ms C referred to, had been made.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had not followed the correct procedure for taking meter readings. He said that since opening his business in May 2010, his water bills had greatly increased although his water consumption had not. He complained about this to Business Stream in August 2014 and was told that he should check for a leak. A leak was found and was fixed in October 2014.

Business Stream applied a leak allowance to Mr C's account for the six month period immediately before the leak was fixed. Mr C felt that this was insufficient and that Business Stream had not followed their procedure for taking meter readings. He believed the leak allowance should have been backdated to the opening of his business.

Business Stream's procedure requires them to take two meter readings per year. Mr C said that he was not alerted to the possibility of a leak because of Business Stream's failure to do this. However, we found that Business Stream had taken readings over the time in question, apart from a period between August 2013 and September 2014 (and they had attempted to do so in March 2014 but the premises were closed). It was towards the end of this timeframe that Mr C raised his concerns and was advised to check for a leak.

Business Stream said that Mr C had a responsibility to regularly check his water bills and to check for possible leaks and have them repaired. Once the leak was found and repaired, a six-month leak allowance was successfully applied for and paid into Mr C's account, in accordance with policy.

We found no evidence that Business Stream had failed to follow the correct procedures and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) unreasonably rejected her compelling personal reasons supporting her appeal for student funding.

We found that 'compelling personal reasons' was a phrase used by other student funding bodies and on websites giving advice on student funding, but it was not used by SAAS. Miss C had already been allocated all of the funding she was entitled to, and she did not meet the criteria for any funding concessions. Therefore, there was no further funding SAAS could award her. While Miss C was entitled to submit an appeal to SAAS, she did not meet their grounds for appeal and, therefore, her appeal was rejected by SAAS. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council erected new equipment in an established play park next to her home. The new equipment is proving significantly more successful than the previous equipment and is being used by many more people. Mrs C is unhappy with the noise from the park area and has suffered from some anti-social behaviour from park users. She complained to us that the council failed to carry out an appropriate public consultation before installing the equipment.

In their response to the complaint the council had told Mrs C that there was no duty for them to carry out a substantial consultation for the installation of this type of equipment in an established play park, although they noted that they had consulted with local schools. They said that as they were replacing old play equipment with new, there was also no need for the submission of a planning application for the majority of the equipment. However, they acknowledged that one piece of equipment did exceed the height limits for consideration as permitted development. As a result, they considered whether this specific piece of equipment was of sufficient detriment, in itself, to require the submission of a planning application. They decided that the submission of a planning application was not required as the equipment only just exceeded the height limits, it could not be reduced in height and they deemed that the additional height, in itself, would not be detrimental to Mrs C's amenity.

We were satisfied that there was no additional duty on the council to consult. We were also satisfied that they had correctly identified an individual item of equipment as being one which would not normally meet the criteria for permitted development and that they had assessed whether the additional height of the single item of equipment would have an impact on Mrs C's amenity. As they demonstrated that they had considered whether a planning application should be requested, and as no further public consultation was required, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council were refusing to clear his neighbour's guttering which, he said, was having an impact on the effectiveness of his guttering. He also complained that the council refused to replace the garden fence. The council had initially agreed to do both but, as Mr C's neighbour turned out to be an owner-occupier, they said they would not carry out the work without an agreement that the neighbour would contribute to the costs.

Mr C was unhappy with this view; however, having reviewed the council's procedures, we were satisfied that they were acting in accordance with their responsibilities. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C applied to the park authority for a repair grant; it was initially refused, but later an offer of funding was made. However, the park authority withdrew the offer of funding. Mrs C complained about this, and that the park authority would not change information they gave to applicants.

The park authority's conditions of grant stated that building work must not start before a signed copy of a grant offer has been received by the park authority, and that the park authority reserved the right to withhold the grant if any conditions were not complied with. As Mrs C's building work started before she was offered the grant, the park authority withdrew the offer. We found that while the timing of this was unfortunate from Mrs C's perspective, that did not invalidate the conditions of the grant.

The park authority explained that the circumstances in which funding became available to Mrs C were unusual, and they explained the importance of not raising applicants expectations falsely; we found these explanations were reasonable. In addition, the park authority said that, in future, they would consider Mrs C's point about the wording of their documentation where possible. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C said that there was a long-standing history of complaints of low-level noise from an industrial estate close to his home but that the council failed to properly investigate these. He also said that when owners of the site applied for planning permission in 2014, a report presented to the planning committee failed to accurately report the noise issues.

We investigated the complaint and also took independent planning advice. We found that from December 2011, the council had issued noise abatement notices in respect of the site but that the owners had failed to comply. After Mr C complained in 2012, the council visited the premises concerned and witnessed a number of noise issues about which they issued a further abatement notice. The owners were sent written warnings and advised of the penalties of non-compliance. No further complaints were received in 2012. Thereafter, the owners applied for planning permission and there was no doubt that the relevant committee report contained erroneous information. However, this was corrected orally at the planning committee meeting to discuss the application. Notwithstanding the error, we further found that noise was not a material consideration when determining the application. We did not uphold the complaint.