Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Following a call from Mr C, the council sent a plumber to unblock a drain at his home. Mr C's own plumber had advised that the blockage was in the communal area of pipework and so when the council's plumber unblocked the drain, all residents in the block were invoiced. Mr C paid his share of this invoice. However, the council were then informed by another resident that he had not been affected by the blockage. As a result they contacted their plumber who confirmed that the blockage was in Mr C's pipework and not in a communal area. As a result they withdrew the invoices from other residents and invoiced Mr C for the full costs. They also apologised for not doing so earlier. Mr C complained that he was never told that he would be liable for the costs should the works not be communal and also that he was not told that he would be charged costs at the out-of-hours rate.

The council explained that it was their standard procedure to highlight costs and responsibilities to customers requesting that they attend to emergency repairs. They explained that information about their services and the costs are also available on their website.

The evidence suggested that Mr C's plumber had said that the block was likely to be in the communal pipework, so Mr C should call in the evening and request that a plumber attend. We obtained copies of the council's procedures and phone scripts. Although we were unable to say what was said in the phone calls, we were satisfied that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's request for a service and were justified in invoicing Mr C alone, given that the council's plumber located the blockage in the pipework in Mr C's property. As the evidence suggested that the council dealt with the call out appropriately, and as we were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to establish that the council did not inform Mr C of costs and the process during his phone calls to them, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council regarding a planning application they had approved for a residential property to be built in a site adjacent to his home, which is on a cliff edge. After approval of the plans, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had visited the site and, in contradiction of the plans, recommended that building should not take place within ten metres of the edge of the cliff. Mr C therefore questioned why SEPA were not consulted at the time of the application and the council responded to say that there was nothing about the application which would have triggered a consultation.

As part of our investigation, the council provided SEPA's guidance for which applications they wished to be consulted upon. This did not include any reference to developments on or near cliff edges. The planning advice we received was that the decision not to consult was at the council's discretion in the circumstances. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that he complained to the council in October 2014 about a noise nuisance emanating from business premises close to his home but that they failed to follow correct procedures and delayed in dealing with his complaints. The council said that they had investigated all of his complaints and responded to him but found no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance which they could pursue.

We investigated the complaint and found that after Mr C had been in contact with them, the council made a site visit to the premises concerned, spoke to the operator, issued Mr C with noise logs to complete, installed noise monitoring machinery in Mr C's house and took readings. However, no evidence was produced to confirm that a statutory noise nuisance existed which would have allowed the council to issue a noise abatement notice. We also found that, overall, the council responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints and that there were no unreasonable delays in the way they handled his reports of noise. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was involved in a custody dispute with his former partner. Mr C complained that two letters on council headed notepaper were produced in court proceedings which he considered to be false or fraudulently obtained. Mr C complained that the council had not acted reasonably when he reported this to them.

We were satisfied that the council investigated the allegations Mr C made and having established that the letters were unsanctioned and unauthorised, we found that they acted appropriately to remedy the situation by writing to the court and the child benefit office to say so. We were satisfied that the council's obligations under the Data Protection Act meant they were not able to share information about other people with Mr C and were obliged to treat internal staffing matters as confidential. This meant that they were not entitled to share the outcome of their internal investigation with him, or to disclose whether or to what degree staff had been subject to disciplinary action. We determined that the question of whether the matter should have been reported to the police at the end of their internal investigation was a discretionary one.

Summary

Mr C disputed that he had access to heating during the period between a repair being reported to the housing association and the repair taking place. We found that heating was available during this time and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association were failing to carry out repairs to his home in line with their obligations under the tenancy agreement. He had reported leaking taps to the association, who visited to carry out repairs. He was concerned about the level of water damage and was of the view that the association should make right the water ingress problems he had identified.

The association said that they had responded to Mr C's complaints of leaking taps promptly, and within the timescales required by the repairs procedure. They said that they had inspected his property, at his request, and were satisfied that any residual dampness and minor damage to his property was not of a level which required their intervention.

We considered the evidence and established that the association had reacted promptly, and within the appropriate timescale, to Mr C's requests for repairs to his taps. We were also satisfied that they had inspected any damage caused to ensure that the property was still habitable and of a standard required to meet the terms of their tenancy agreement. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late father (Mr A). Mr A became unwell and an ambulance was called. The ambulance crew examined him and suspected a heart attack. They contacted the coronary care unit at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and it was agreed that Mr A should be brought there. However, Mr A went into cardiac arrest on the way and, despite the ambulance diverting to the nearest hospital at that time, he could not be resuscitated and he died. Miss C complained about the time taken for the ambulance to set off for hospital and also about the decision to take Mr A to Edinburgh rather than his local hospital.

The ambulance service noted that the ambulance was present at Mr A's home for a total of 33 minutes. They advised that this included all the patient assessment process, liaison with the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and transferring Mr A to the ambulance. They indicated that the only issue that may have created a slight delay was difficulty in establishing intravenous access (where a thin tube is placed inside a vein to administer or withdraw fluids).

We took independent clinical advice from a paramedic. They considered that the ambulance crew had provided appropriate clinical treatment and acted within Mr A's best interests. While they noted that the ambulance was at Mr A's home for 13 minutes more than the optimum recommended time for a coronary case, they considered that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances. They advised that it was the correct decision to transfer Mr A to Edinburgh for specialist treatment, right up to the point that he went into cardiac arrest. They informed us that it was accepted practice to bypass nearer hospitals to take patients to the best possible place of treatment and they said it was not certain that Mr A would have survived the cardiac arrest had he been in hospital when it occurred. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

After suffering recurrent ear infections, a child had surgery to insert grommets in his ears (a small tube inserted into the ear to help drain away fluid in the middle ear and maintain air pressure) at a private hospital in 2013. He then attended the Royal Hospital for Sick Children from early in 2014 as he had been experiencing nose bleeds. The child had a number of procedures carried out in May of that year but soon afterwards experienced another ear infection. He was seen in hospital again and a further set of grommets were inserted in August. He was reviewed in November and it was planned to see him in six months but his appointment was brought forward as he had been suffering constant infections and pain.

In April 2015 after attending at hospital, a decision was taken to allow a three month period of 'watchful waiting' before taking a decision to insert grommets again. The child's mother (Miss C) was unhappy with this and arranged for him to be treated privately. She complained that the board had not treated her son appropriately.

We took independent advice from a consultant ear, nose and throat surgeon and we found that the child had been treated in accordance with established guidance. This was because the type of problem from which he suffered could often resolve spontaneously, and it was usual to recommend a period of 'watchful waiting' before taking a decision to proceed with surgery. For this reason we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that doctors at her GP practice had failed to refer her for appropriate tests in order to diagnose a tumour in her bowel.

After taking independent advice on this case from a GP adviser, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. The advice we received was that the appropriate guidance had been followed and that there had been no delay in referring Miss C for further investigations.

Summary

Mr C has suffered from spondylolisthesis (where a bone in the spine slips out of position, either forwards or backwards) for a number of years. After his lower back pain became worse his GP referred him for physiotherapy. Mr C attended an appointment with a physiotherapist and was told to self-manage his condition by undertaking core stability exercises and maintaining posture awareness. Mr C had previously found massage therapy to be beneficial to him and he was unhappy that this treatment was not offered to him despite his requests. Mr C had previously obtained massage therapy privately but no longer had the resources to do so.

Mr C wrote to the board to complain that the exercises recommended by the physiotherapist were not helping his condition. Mr C stated that he had obtained private treatment (for massage therapy) on occasion, and that he believed that this treatment should be offered by the NHS. The board investigated Mr C's complaint and concluded that whilst massage therapy can help lower back pain for short periods of time, the exercise programme recommended to Mr C was the most appropriate for managing his condition.

After taking independent medical advice from a musculoskeletal out-patient physiotherapist, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The adviser concluded that it was reasonable of the board to refuse Mr C massage therapy as there was limited evidence to support the effectiveness of the treatment in managing chronic lower back pain. The adviser also thought that the exercise programme treatment that was recommended to Mr C was reasonable. In view of this, there was no evidence that the board had unreasonably refused to offer Mr C massage therapy and we did not uphold the complaint.