Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) who had been admitted to Forth Valley Royal Hospital with chronic liver disease. Mrs C said she believed the care and treatment provided to her son had been inadequate, highlighting poor dietary input as a particular concern. Mrs C also said the decision to discharge him had been inappropriate, as he had refused all treatment at home and died a few days later.

We took independent medical advice on Mr A's treatment and discharge. The adviser said that Mr A had been provided with all treatments short of a liver transplant. The advice noted that Mr A had been adamant that he wished to be discharged and that he was prepared to refuse to eat or drink in order to achieve this. Although it was arguable Mr A should have been made to discharge himself, he had been provided with follow-up care as an out-patient. Mr A had refused to engage with this treatment.

We found Mr A's care and treatment had been reasonable and that the decision to discharge him was also, on balance, reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment he had received from the board at a prison health centre in relation to his stomach pains. We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the care provided to Mr C in relation to his stomach pains had been of a reasonable standard and we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the board failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaints about this. We were satisfied that the board had acted in line with their complaints procedure and that they had issued a reasonable response to Mr C's concerns. In view of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream failed to fully restore the water supply to his business premises after the supply was reconnected. The water supply had been disconnected because the previous occupier of the premises had not paid their water charges. Mr C contacted Business Stream to ask for the water supply to be reconnected and they arranged for their contractors to attend. However, the water supply was not reinstated to all of the facilities in Mr C's premises because of an airlock in the internal pipework. The contractors were unable to clear the airlock and said that Mr C would have to arrange for a plumber to attend to fix this.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from one of our water advisers. We found that Business Stream's responsibility was to reinstate the water supply to the property boundary. Internal pipework is the responsibility of the occupier of the property. Business Stream fulfilled their responsibility in reinstating the water supply to the boundary of Mr C's property and, in view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that when his client (Mr A) had applied for a return to sewer allowance (a reduction in water charges that can be allowed when it is demonstrated that less than 95 percent of the water supplied returns to the sewer), Business Stream had only backdated the allowance for three months. Mr C considered that it should have been backdated for five years under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

We considered Scottish Water's Wholesale Charges Scheme for 2014/15, which had been approved by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. This stated that return to sewer allowances apply from the date on which the water provider demonstrates to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance is justified, ie the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, is received. We also considered Business Stream's return to sewer allowance policy. This stated that the award of a return to sewer allowance does not mean that the customer has previously been incorrectly billed, but is a deviation from the standard billing, and that this will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated.

The complexity of the matter had meant that it had taken Mr C some time to provide the information required for the return to sewer allowance and, in recognition of this, Business Stream had backdated the allowance for three months. There was no requirement to backdate under the policy and we considered that the decision to backdate for three months had been reasonable. We did not, therefore, uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with Business Stream's handling of surface water drainage charges for his property. He received notification of the charges in 2013, backdated to 2008. Mr C said that he had informed the water wholesaler from January 2005 onwards about his occupation of the property and, as such, Business Stream were unfairly backdating the water charges from 2008.

Business Stream confirmed that the property was liable for the charges that had been billed on the account. They stated that it is the responsibility of the owner/occupier to advise them of when a property was being used. They said that they could not find any record of information being sent to them confirming that the property was occupied. The property had been identified as being occupied following a routine audit in December 2013.

During our investigation we found no objective evidence that Business Stream had been notified that the property was occupied and, as such, we did not uphold the complaint that they unfairly charged the surface water drainage charges. We were satisfied that, in response to Mr C's complaint, Business Stream explained why they were satisfied that the charges applied to the account were correct, due and payable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his progression to less secure conditions had been unreasonable. In particular, Mr C said the punishment part of his sentence had expired four years ago and that he was five years over his progression date. He said he had been told several times that he would progress to open (lowest security) conditions but it had not happened.

The decision on whether to progress a prisoner to less secure conditions is a discretionary one for the risk management team (RMT - the group responsible for considering whether a prisoner is suitable to progress to less secure conditions) to take. We cannot question their decision. In looking at Mr C's complaint, our role was to assess whether in dealing with his case, the prison had applied the relevant policies and procedures appropriately.

The evidence available showed that the prison acknowledged Mr C had made good progress. However, they wanted him to evidence the progress he had made. Therefore, they had not recommended his progression to less secure conditions. We did not see any evidence to suggest that the prison had not followed the relevant policies and procedures appropriately in Mr C's case. Therefore, we considered that the prison’s handling of Mr C's progression to less secure conditions had been reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had appointed a person to carry out an assessment who did not meet the stated criteria specified in the tender document. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant psychiatrist. We found that, in making their decision to appoint someone to carry out the assessment, the SPS did so appropriately and in line with the service specification detailed in the tender document. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s decision to request a church bell's chime to be switched off following noise complaints from neighbouring residents. The council’s noise team investigated the complaints as per their duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and they used World Health Organisation guidelines to establish whether the measured noise levels would cause sleep disturbance. As the recorded noise levels from one of the complainants’ properties exceeded the guideline level, the council deemed the noise to be a nuisance. They asked for the chime to be switched off until a longer-term solution could be identified. Mr C noted the historic nature of the church bell. He considered that the council were inappropriately treating it in the same manner as a malfunctioning car alarm or a late night party.

The council explained how they investigated the noise complaints. They assured us that they had adhered to their statutory and procedural responsibilities. They noted that their public safety team were responsible for maintaining the church bell. Therefore, they had assumed that the team was also responsible for taking action to resolve the noise complaints. The chime was switched off via an informal agreement with the public safety team and the council felt that a longer-term solution could be quickly identified and agreed. However, it was then clarified that the role of the public safety team did not extend to this, and the church owners were responsible. The council told us they were committed to working with the owners to help find an appropriate solution, and they provided evidence of their ongoing involvement in this process.

Apart from the confusion over responsibilities, we concluded that the decision to ask for the chime to be switched off was a discretionary one that the council were entitled to take. We were satisfied that they provided evidence to demonstrate the basis upon which they exercised their professional judgement. As we did not see any evidence of administrative failure on the council’s part, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was informed that his daughter (Miss A) would be allocated to a composite class (where two or more year groups are taught together) the following academic year. She was the only female member of her current class who was to be placed in the composite class. Mr C was concerned about the impact of this decision on Miss A and her learning. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take into account the Scottish Government 'Getting it right for every child' (GIRFEC) provisions. Mr C was also unhappy about the way the council handled his complaint.

We contacted the Scottish Government who explained that, at present, the GIRFEC provisions were best practice. The council explained that best practice was followed when allocating children to composite classes. They said the relevant council policy makes allowances for headteachers to make decisions on the basis of individual needs. If a headteacher judges that a child's needs will not be met, they can exercise their discretion and move the child to a more appropriate class. We was satisfied that, in Mr C's case, the headteacher gave consideration to the relevant criteria for allocating children to composite classes and made their decision on that basis.

Mr C also complained about the way his complaint had been handled. He said that his complaint was not properly understood or represented and that Miss A's previous teachers were not interviewed. He said that it was not demonstrated how his proposed alternative solution would have compromised the council's policy. Additionally, he said that the GIRFEC provisions were not identified as a consideration in the response to his complaint. Following detailed consideration of all the relevant documents and correspondence, we concluded that the handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and did not uphold his complaint to us.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's sheriff officers unreasonably visited his home three times during a three-month period, and that a member of staff in the council's collections office was rude and evasive during a phone call.

We found that Mr C was asked by the council to make payments to the sheriff officers, but he declined to do so and wanted to pay the council directly. This meant that there was a delay in updating the sheriff officers' records after payment was made. It was as a result of this delay that, when sheriff officers first visited to serve a charge notice, the outstanding balance on the notice was incorrect. They re-attended having updated the outstanding balance but, once again, Mr C had made a payment in the meantime. They withdrew the notice again and reissued it a few days later for the correct value. As Mr C was asked to make payments directly to sheriff officers but declined to do so, we did not consider the delay in updating the account balances to be unreasonable. As a result, we found that the three visits by sheriff officers were not unreasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also noted that the council did not record their phone calls. We were unable, therefore, to reach a conclusion on Mr C's complaint about the tone of the phone call with a council officer.