Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she had received from her former GP practice. Ms C felt that doctors there had not managed an ongoing medical condition effectively and that there had been a delay in treating her acne. Ms C was also concerned by the practice's approach to her mental health.

After taking independent advice on this case from a GP, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. The advice we received was that there were no failings in the care or treatment of Ms C's physical or mental health. The adviser reviewed Ms C's medical records and commented that her acne had been appropriately treated on the first occasion it was mentioned in her notes. They advised that responsibility for managing her ongoing condition lay with the local NHS board, rather than the practice, and that appropriate action had been taken in relation to Ms C's mental health.

Summary

Mr A's mother and partner complained about the care that Mr A received from the medical practice after he visited them with a number of different symptoms including tiredness, sweating and backache. Mr A was later diagnosed with testicular cancer and they felt that doctors has incorrectly attributed his symptoms to his existing long-term condition. They were concerned that there had been a failure to conduct appropriate investigations as a result and that an emergency hospital referral should have been made when Mr A's condition deteriorated.

After taking independent advice from a GP, we did not uphold these complaints. We received advice that there was no evidence that doctors had attributed Mr A's symptoms to his existing condition and we found that they had arranged appropriate investigations to determine the cause of his illness. The adviser also considered that the practice had made appropriate timely referrals for Mr A.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment provided to his mother (Mrs A) at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary before her death. Mrs A's GP had referred her to hospital. At that time, she had end stage kidney failure, but did not want dialysis (a form of treatment that replicates many of the kidney's functions) for this. Mrs A died four days later and the cause of death was recorded as pneumonia. It was also recorded at that time that Mrs A had deteriorated despite antibiotics and that her kidney function had worsened. Mr C had subsequently complained to the board about the care provided to Mrs A.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a medical adviser who is a consultant geriatrician. We found that although it would have been better to carry out an x-ray on Mrs A on the night she was admitted rather than waiting until the following morning, this delay did not alter her treatment. It would, however, have given the clinicians and Mrs A's family more information about her condition. We also found that Mrs A had been able to make her own decisions and had expressed strong wishes that she did not wish to be subjected to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of a cardiac arrest. Although the form confirming that she should not be resuscitated had not been countersigned by a senior doctor as required, the senior doctors had recorded their agreement with the decision in the notes.

It is difficult balance between very active care to keep patients alive and then switching to palliative care once it is clear they are dying. We found that, overall, the care provided to Mrs A before her death had been reasonable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C's baby was not lying properly, but was in the breech position (legs downward). After unsuccessful attempts to turn the baby, she was booked in for a caesarean section (an operation to deliver a baby which involves cutting the front of the abdomen and womb). However, several days before the planned caesarean, Miss C began experiencing labour pains and called Ayrshire Maternity Unit. She was asked to come in and was reviewed, then sent back home. Two days later she called again and was asked to come in. Miss C was then admitted and monitored on the ward. She was reviewed by a doctor on several occasions, but told she was not in active labour and a caesarean was planned for the following morning. However, Miss C continued to experience symptoms and a consultant reviewed her and found she was in active labour. Miss C was sent immediately to the labour suite, where her baby was born a few minutes later. Miss C complained about the advice she was given on the phone and the management of the birth, in particular that staff did not recognise that she was in labour and arrange an emergency caesarean.

Staff from the board met with Miss C to discuss her complaint. They explained that when she was examined by the first doctor her cervix was closed, which meant that she was not in active labour. They also explained that, because Miss C's baby was under 39 weeks, the doctor wanted to prescribe steroids and allow time for these to work before conducting a caesarean (to decrease the risk of breathing problems for the baby).

After taking independent obstetric and midwifery advice, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint. We found that Miss C experienced rapid labour, which could not have been predicted by staff, and the care and treatment was reasonable in light of the circumstances known to staff at the time.

Summary

Miss C complained that her university did not support her after she returned from suspension of studies, and about the university's handling of her academic appeal.

We considered the information provided by Miss C and the university. We found that the university, in good faith, accepted certification from Miss C's GP that she was fit to return to study, and that Miss C had given the university no reason to question this until she appealed against the decision to withdraw her from study. The university provided evidence of email exchanges between Miss C and staff from after she returned from suspension and they reiterated that Miss C was certified by her GP as fit to study and that she did not inform the university of any problem at the time. They also said that there were no procedures relating to specific support in a situation where a student was returning from suspension of studies having been declared fit to return. We also found that the university dealt with Miss C's appeal in line with their procedures.

On the matter of Miss C's academic appeal, we saw no evidence that the university's handling of the appeal was inadequate and we therefore did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

We were in no doubt that Miss C had health issues that had a significant impact on her, and the university were also aware of this. However, we found no evidence that the university failed to follow their procedures and, therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university failed to follow the procedure and timescales for a student nursing fitness to practise hearing. She also said that there was a delay in signing off placement booklets, and that the university wrongly told her she would not be entitled to further bursary funds.

We found that the university did follow the fitness to practise regulations. Where there was deviation from the timescales this was not significant and, in part, was done at Mrs C's request. We also found that the placement booklets could not be signed off until after the conclusion of the fitness to practise process. Finally, we found that Mrs C was not entitled to bursary funding as there was no medical reason for her period of study being extended; rather, it was due to academic failure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been overcharged for 23 years by Business Stream. Mr C said that, since 1994, he had been aware of a difference in the water charges for two restaurants he owned of similar sizes. He said he had raised this with his supplier on numerous occasions, but had been told that he was being billed for the correct amount of units.

Business Stream had contacted Mr C subsequently and informed him that his water meter size had been incorrectly recorded and he had been paying an incorrect amount. They refunded the difference for a five-year period. Mr C said he considered this inadequate given the timescale.

Business Stream stated the Prescriptions and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 applied; this allowed them to restrict repayments to a five-year period. Although Business Stream could exercise discretion, they did not believe it would be appropriate in this case. Mr C disagreed and believed Business Stream should compromise and repay 15 years of charges.

We found that there were no records that Mr C had repeatedly complained about his water charges. Business Stream's application of the Prescription and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 was supported by legal advice. Given the absence of a history of complaints about the size of the bills, we found there were no grounds under which Business Stream could have been expected to exercise their discretion. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C applied for and was awarded student funding, including a dependants' grant, for the academic year 2014/15 by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). When she applied the following year, the dependants' grant was not awarded. Mrs C contacted SAAS to find out why she did not qualify for the dependants' grant, and SAAS noted during the call that her husband's income was quite high and that dependants' grant was usually only paid where a partner's income was very low. SAAS then wrote to Mrs C and told her that she had been overpaid for the year 2014/15 and had to repay the dependants' grant she had received, incorrectly, on the basis of the information she had provided.

Mrs C questioned that she had provided the wrong information to SAAS. She said that she had answered all the questions honestly and had provided evidence of her husband's earnings for the tax year ending April 2014.

We obtained information from SAAS about the questions Mrs C had been asked when completing the online application. In the dependants' grant section, we found that Mrs C had clearly been asked to declare her husband's 'total income' for the coming year and that she had entered an incorrect figure.

We were satisfied that SAAS could not have assessed the dependants' grant on the basis of Mrs C's husband's past income because the grant was awarded on an estimate of the current year's income rather than on past earnings. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prospects of parole from prison were being hampered by delays in accessing relevant courses that he required to progress. However, our investigation showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were acting in line with their national policy in relation to the timetable for allocating him to any appropriate courses. In other words, there was no evidence the SPS were acting wrongly, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not served a breach of condition notice in relation to planning permission on a neighbouring property. The planning conditions he referred to related to the running of a commercial business from the property.

After taking independent planning advice on this case, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The adviser explained that planning enforcement is a discretionary matter for the council and we found no evidence of maladministration in their handling of the case.