Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the housing association had not done enough to deal with the anti-social behaviour that Mr A had reported and did not reasonably manage his request to be rehoused.

Mr A had experienced anti-social behaviour from a previous neighbour. When he began experiencing it again from the next tenant, he requested a management transfer (a special transfer not based on the normal points system).

We found that the association had been unable to corroborate Mr A's allegations of anti-social behaviour, despite visiting the property and installing noise monitoring equipment. As such they were limited in how much action they could take. We also found they had assessed Mr A's request to be rehoused in line with their normal allocations policy and did not consider a management transfer to be appropriate; this was a discretionary decision they are allowed to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he received poor wound care following surgery. He said this resulted in his wound splitting open at home and he had to be readmitted to Western Isles Hospital. Mr C experienced protracted pain and distress due to the condition of his wound.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser and found that the risk of infection had been discussed with Mr C as part of the consent process before his surgery. We also found that the nursing records, including assessments and charts, were of a reasonable standard and demonstrated that Mr C's wound was appropriately monitored and treated before his initial discharge from hospital.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that her husband (Mr C) did not receive a reasonable standard of care from his GP practice. Mr C had been a patient at the practice for three months, having transferred from a different practice, when he suffered a heart attack and died.

Mrs C felt that the practice should have requested a chest x-ray and an echocardiogram (a test which records the rhythm and electrical activity of the heart). She said that there had been a sequence of failed attempts to diagnose and treat Mr C.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. They found that Mr C had received reasonable care from the practice. The adviser noted that Mr C had been appropriately referred to the hospital respiratory medicine department and consequently considered that it was not unreasonable that Mr C was not referred for a chest x-ray or an echocardiogram. We accepted the adviser's comments and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about a dental practice's handling of her complaint about a dentist. We were satisfied that the practice's response had adequately addressed the issues raised by Ms C. The response was also issued in line with the timescales referred to in the practice's complaints policy. In view of this, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that her dentist did not refer her to specialists in oral surgery to have her wisdom tooth extracted. She had attended a routine appointment with her dentist and explained that she had toothache in her bottom right wisdom tooth. An x-ray was taken but the dentist decided that, as there was no evidence of disease, the wisdom tooth did not need to be extracted. He therefore did not refer Ms C for dental surgery.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that the dentist had acted in line with the relevant guidelines, which state that impacted wisdom teeth that are free from disease should not be operated on. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C also complained that the dentist did not tell her she would not be referred to have the wisdom tooth extracted. In response to our enquiries, the dentist told us that he had asked Ms C to wait in the waiting area for the results of the x-ray of her wisdom tooth. However, by the time he went to tell her the results, Ms C had already left the practice. The dentist left a note in her records that this was to be discussed with Ms C at her next visit. However, Ms C did not return to the dental practice.

We found that the dentist had acted reasonably in relation to this matter and we did not uphold the complaint.