Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C's daughter appealed to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) about her results in two subjects. Her appeals were not upheld. Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter to the SQA about the procedures they had followed and that they had not examined apparent administrative errors in the recording of her marks. The SQA investigated and responded to additional points of clarification that Mr C asked for, but he did not think their responses were clear or addressed his concerns. He also asked about the papers for one of her subjects which appeared to be missing. The SQA admitted they were unable to trace the documents and outlined the steps they would take to ensure there would be no recurrence.

From our investigation, we were satisfied that the SQA provided reasonable responses to Mr C's representations. The responses included explaining their quality assurance processes, confirming that the original marking of the examinations had been to the national standard, confirming that following the appeal they were satisfied the marks awarded were correct and that there had been no mistakes in the marking of the examinations. They had also responded to Mr C's concerns about the loss of documents and had explained the action taken to improve their processes.

Summary

Ms C complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing her brother (Mr A) to less secure conditions.

We obtained information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about Mr A's case and we reviewed the relevant policies in place. We found that Mr A had been asked to participate in an assessment process on more than one occasion but he had refused. He finally took part in the process, and the information gathered was discussed. Following that, it was decided that Mr A needed to participate in a programme to address his offending needs. However, Mr A maintained his innocence and denied the offences he had been convicted of. Therefore, the SPS placed him on the programme's waiting list because he was not ready to engage with it.

The SPS recognised that Mr A denied the offences for which he had been convicted. However, Mr A had been convicted of his offences and had to be managed on that basis. The SPS has a role to reduce the risk an individual is assessed as presenting, which they do by giving prisoners the opportunity to participate in relevant programmes. The SPS are also authorised to refuse to progress individual prisoners to less secure conditions if they do not consider that the individual has addressed their offending needs as much as possible. In Mr A's case, the evidence showed that the SPS took account of various assessments which showed that he posed a risk. Because of that, they concluded that he needed to reconsider participating on the identified programme if he wanted to progress.

We found no evidence to suggest that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing Mr A to less secure conditions. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow their policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour when investigating their complaints about their neighbour.

We investigated the complaint and it was recognised that Mr and Mrs C had long-running concerns about their neighbour, and that counter allegations had been made about them. We found that the neighbour had been spoken to after incidents were reported and, on two occasions, had been issued with warnings by the council. Advice had been given and mediation was offered (but refused by the neighbour). Furthermore, in recognition of the breakdown in their relationship, the council had offered Mr and Mrs C a housing move. The council had made two offers, both of which were refused. While it was acknowledged that the situation was stressful and upsetting for Mr and Mrs C, there was no evidence that the council had not dealt with their complaints appropriately, so we did not uphold their complaint.

Summary

Mr C owned a property in Edinburgh. Between 2008 and 2010, four statutory notices were issued by the council requiring work to be carried out on the property. The council were asked to take over management of the works. Although the work was completed in February 2012, the council did not issue Mr C with an invoice until March 2014. He considered there to have been an unreasonable delay to the invoice. He also complained that the project had been managed poorly with unnecessary delays. He noted that the responsible department within the council was placed under investigation and considered that this was evidence of poor management practices. In the circumstances, he did not feel it was appropriate for the council to charge their normal 15 percent administration fee.

We found that the invoice was delayed while an independent investigation was carried out into the property conservation service's handling of all statutory notice projects. We considered it reasonable for the council to await the outcome of the investigation rather than issuing an invoice that may later turn out to be inaccurate. We considered that the independent investigation appropriately sought to check the management of each project on its own merits. Whilst there were widely publicised cases of poor management of statutory notice works, this did not affect Mr C's case and we, therefore, had no grounds to recommend that the council's fees were waived.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council refused his request for a disabled parking bay outside his home. He has mobility problems following a stroke, and is a wheelchair user. Mr C's wife also has limited mobility, and they are both registered deaf, blind and are blue badge holders.

We found that Mr C's request had been assessed appropriately by the council in line with the legislation, and with the council's own policy. Mr C and his wife did not meet the criteria, as they do not have a vehicle that is suitable for their use registered to them at their home address. We were satisfied that the council had taken reasonable steps to assess and check that there were suitable alternatives in place which would allow Mr C and his wife to be picked up and dropped off safely when they were taken out. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C requested a variation to a planning permission granted to him. The original permission allowed the building of a house and outbuildings, but restricted the use of the outbuildings. Mr C wished to remove the restriction on business use for one outbuilding. He also wanted retrospective approval for the installation of a flue for a wood-burning stove in an outbuilding. The house had not been constructed at this time.

Mr C had engaged in extensive correspondence with the council about possible changes to the planning conditions. The council had responded to these, but had noted that he should seek independent planning advice. Mr C had submitted an application for retrospective planning permission for the stove flue, but this had been rejected.

Mr C complained that the council had not provided reasonable advice on altering the planning condition. He said that they had incorrectly stated he did not have permitted development rights to build the flue for the wood-burning stove. He also complained they had not responded reasonably to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. The adviser said that the council had acted reasonably and proportionally in dealing with Mr C and in the advice provided by planning officers. We found the council had acted reasonably. Mr C had not taken independent planning advice, despite planning officers suggesting that he do so, and he had agreed to the planning application as submitted. The council had responded appropriately to his complaint, although it was accepted that he disagreed with their position.

Summary

Mr C had levies added to his council tax liabilities across two years due to late payment. Mr C complained to the council that these levies were unreasonable because he had not received the correspondence in which the council had advised him of his liability and that his payment was overdue. Mr C was of the view that without proof of his receiving the correspondence the council were unable to add levies to his liability. The council told him that there was no requirement for them to provide such proof.

Mr C complained to us. We decided that there was no requirement for the council to provide the type of proof Mr C sought and that the council's actions in adding the levies had been reasonable, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that in considering a planning application to extend the house next to his, the council failed to carry out what he considered to be a reasonable assessment of the privacy, daylight and amenity (enjoyment of property or surroundings) to his home. He said that the developer should have been required to submit plans which clearly showed the proximity and impact of the proposals on his home. He also felt that the application had not been assessed against the relevant planning policies.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that, while it may have been preferable for the drawings accompanying and supporting the application to have also shown neighbouring properties in outline, this was offset by the fact that council officers had made a site visit. We also found that, although Mr C said the council failed to follow their own guidance, there was no relevant guidance in place at the time. New guidance was in draft and was only published on the day that planning permission was formally granted. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

A GP was called to Mrs A's home when she was experiencing breathing difficulties. The GP examined Mrs A and prescribed medication. Two days later Mrs A was admitted to hospital with respiratory failure. Mrs A subsequently complained to the practice about the care and treatment she received at the home visit. The practice explained the reasons why the GP had made his decisions and indicated that they considered that these had been reasonable. Mrs A remained dissatisfied and Mrs C, who works for an advice agency, complained to us on behalf of Mrs A. Specifically, Mrs A wanted to see if there was a preventable delay in her care.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. The adviser reviewed the medical records for the home visit and considered that the symptoms and signs recorded were consistent with the diagnosis made, which was an acute exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The adviser told us that the GP had identified this appropriately and treated Mrs A in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance relevant to COPD in Scotland.

Overall, the adviser was satisfied that the practice's care and treatment of Mrs A was reasonable. We agreed with this advice, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's husband (Mr C) was admitted to Perth Royal Infirmary and treated for pneumonia. His condition did not improve whilst in hospital and he died seven days after being admitted.

Mrs C raised a number of specific complaints about the medical and nursing treatment her husband received at the hospital. In particular, she felt that his medication was not managed appropriately and that she was left to take care of many of his basic personal care needs.

We took independent advice from two advisers, one a consultant geriatrician and the other a nurse. Whilst we were critical of the board for failing to ensure Mr C's teeth were cleaned regularly and for initially denying Mrs C access to the ward outside of normal visiting times, we were generally satisfied that the medical and nursing care was of a good standard.