Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area.

When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that as part of the process for a community buy-out, the council misrepresented information about the valuation of the property to elected members. He also said that officers reneged on an agreement about discounting the sale and unreasonably failed to pass his complaint about these matters to an independent party.

We investigated the complaint and we found that there was no evidence to suggest that the language used about the valuation obtained by Mr C (and the group with whom he was associated) was in any way misleading or misrepresented the facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that an agreement had been given to Mr C about a discounted price upon which the council subsequently reneged. In all, we found that the council dealt appropriately with Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C, who is a GP, complained that the council failed to communicate with her about their handling of a child protection matter that she had raised with a head teacher. We found that the council had acted reasonably in referring Ms C to the body leading the investigation and that their approach to information sharing was in line with the guidance. We were satisfied that in the circumstances the council were correct not to share information not least because it was not clear why Ms C wanted it or what the information would be used for.

We found that the council had responded in a timeous way to Ms C’s complaint. Although Ms C felt that the council should have continued to engage with her further correspondence at the end of the complaints process, we did not agree, not least because the prospect of resolving matters to her satisfaction was remote.

Summary

Mrs C's husband was an adult with incapacity and she was his power of attorney. He was diagnosed with an abscess on his right kidney and had to be transferred by air ambulance to a hospital in another board area. Mrs C accompanied her husband in the air ambulance and arranged to stay in accommodation near to the hospital. She sought to claim back the accommodation expenses from the board but her claim was refused. Mrs C complained that the board acted unreasonably by failing to refund her accommodation expenses.

Following our investigation, we established that the board had followed their patient travel policy when reaching a decision on her claim. Section 10.2 of the policy was clear that travelling in the air ambulance did not make an individual an escort for the purpose of the policy and that they would be responsible for their own accommodation and return expenses. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a history of bowel problems. He had surgery at Balfour Hospital to rectify a twisted bowel and hernia. Mr C was concerned that his bowel was perforated during the operation, which meant it leaked and was slow to heal, affecting his ability to work. Five months later he had further surgery to repair the damage, after which the healing process was quick. Mr C complained that the board did not provide adequate reasoning for the delay in carrying out the second surgical procedure.

We took independent medical advice on this case from a consultant colorectal surgeon. Whilst we recognised the significant impact that Mr C's post-operative problems had had on his life, we found that he had experienced a recognised complication of this type of surgery. He had developed a fistula (a tube-shaped hollow between organs) possibly caused by one of his stitches opening. We were satisfied that a period of time had to be left between the two surgeries to allow the fistula to repair itself and prevent further damage. The second operation was, therefore, not delayed and we found no evidence of failings by the medical team.