Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably terminated her former tenancy. She told us that when she moved out of her council property, she handed in her keys and an end of tenancy form. We found no evidence of this. The council said they did not receive the keys and form until two months after the date Ms C claimed. They ended the tenancy four weeks later, in line with the tenancy agreement Ms C had entered into.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably granted planning permission for a house in a small lane where access to the public road could not meet the visibility standards required. He also raised concerns about the impact of this development on parking in the area. Initially, the roads department had refused to support the application as it would have meant vehicles reversing onto the public road. Proposals for a turning area were then included in the plan. The roads department said that, even though the access was still substandard, as similar access arrangements existed elsewhere they would not object to consent being granted. They also noted that the development would only result in the loss of one parking space.

We considered Mr C's complaint and took independent advice from a planning adviser. We were satisfied that, although the access did not meet the usual standards, the council had fully considered the issue of safe access and parking. They had taken into account the steps taken by the applicant to improve access and they considered that, on balance, the proposal was acceptable. As the council were able to demonstrate that they arrived at their decision in a reasoned and justifiable way, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a member of the Scottish Parliament, complained on behalf of Mr A about what he considered to be unauthorised planning development on a site close to his home. Mr A had previously owned the site and still held two planning permissions with regard to it. There was a dispute about ownership of parts of the site.

Mr A believed that the council failed to take appropriate and necessary enforcement action, and that they went on to approve six planning applications in relation to the site. He said that the applications were not properly assessed prior to approval, and that the environmental health department did not make reasonable objection. Because of the works, Mr A said that his water supply had been disrupted and that the council failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this. He was further aggrieved because he had been issued with a planning contravention notice in relation to the site.

We took independent advice from a planner and we found that, despite Mr A's concerns, there was evidence to show that the council had followed correct procedures. We also found that the question of whether enforcement action was taken was at the discretion of the council, and any action was required to be proportionate. We found that the six applications had been properly considered and that, although three of them were retrospective, this was all in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. The applications had been properly assessed and commented upon by the environmental health department. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr A's water supply had been detrimentally affected, and he had been given appropriate advice in the event that this should happen. It was clear that it had been fully explained to him why he had received a planning contravention notice and why the required information was necessary.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the way the council had dealt with a planning application to develop a site close to her home. Over the years, a number of applications had been made for the site or nearby. Ms C was unhappy that differing noise measurements taken at her home had been accepted by the council. She also said that developers had identified two different sources for her water supply but that the council still went on to determine the planning application. Ms C also complained that the minute of the local area planning committee meeting failed to fully record her feelings about the matter.

We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that although contradictory information had been presented to the council by the developers, this was not a matter within council control. The accuracy of the information was the responsibility of the developer. We found that such information only formed part of the evidence of the likely significance of any environmental effects of a proposed development. The council would consider this alongside other, material considerations when making planning decisions. Moreover, it was not uncommon for a planning authority to 'accept' conflicting evidence knowing it was not a determining factor and that any potential effects could be mitigated by planning conditions.

With regard to Ms C's concerns about the committee meeting minute, it was confirmed that this was not meant to be a verbatim record, but was a way to record the process of the meeting and to inform committee members about the decision they were about to take. The minute was not taken to provide documentary evidence for any other purpose.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) that the housing association failed to adequately respond to Ms A's concerns that her flat was not secure.

Ms A said that she had phoned the association in January 2014 to ask them for repairs to be carried out to her windows but they did not respond. In early July 2014, Ms A was taken into hospital where she stayed for a number of months. She said despite immediately raising her concerns about the security of her windows with a member of the association's staff, nothing was done. It was not until later in July 2014 that the association responded to a phone call and secured the windows from the outside. A few weeks later, the flat was broken into and some of Ms A's property was stolen.

We investigated the complaint, and considered evidence from the association and from Ms A. This confirmed that Ms A had made a phone call in January 2014 to the association. However, the problem reported by Ms A and dealt with by the association had not been about her windows. Similarly, we found that although Ms A said she had reported a problem with her windows (which she said could not be closed) as soon as she was admitted to hospital, the conversation with the member of staff was noted in the association's records as being in August 2014. The evidence confirmed that as soon as she reported that her windows were faulty at the end of July 2014, staff attended and made the premises as secure as possible. Ms A believed that the association should have accepted a key from her and boarded the windows from the inside, but this was not their practice from a security point of view. The association considered that boarding the windows from the outside was a reasonable response to her concerns.

Our investigation found that as soon as Ms A contacted the association about her windows at the end of July 2014, they responded immediately taking appropriate and reasonable action, so we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that when she terminated her tenancy she was only paid compensation for some of the improvements she had made to her former home. In particular, the housing association told her that the conservatory she had erected did not qualify for compensation.

Our investigation found that conservatories were not listed as being an improvement qualifying for compensation in either the legislation (Housing (Scotland) Act 2001) or in the association's internal guidance based on the legislation. Mrs C maintained that she had been told verbally by more than one employee of the association that she would receive compensation. However, there was no written evidence of this. The letter giving Mrs C permission to erect the conservatory did not make any reference to compensation.

When Mrs C submitted her claim for compensation the association considered it in light of the legislation and guidance. They also took legal advice on whether the conservatory would qualify for compensation. Our view was that the association took reasonable action to consider Mrs C's claim, and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of Miss A, who had had surgery to her jaw at Ninewells Hospital. Following this surgery, Miss A had been diagnosed with a serious injury to her neck, which had required a second operation to correct. Ms C suggested that the first operation had been inappropriate and that Miss A's injury had taken too long to diagnose.

We received independent advice from a consultant maxillofacial (mouth, jaws, face and neck) surgeon and a consultant orthopaedic (concerning the musculoskeletal system) surgeon. The advice said that the injury was extremely rare and that it was not clear when the injury had occurred, although it was highly probable that it occurred during the operation. There were no signs before the surgery that Miss A was at risk of suffering this type of injury and the operation was the appropriate one for her condition. The advice said that the time taken to diagnose the injury was reasonable in the circumstances.

We found that Miss A had suffered a very rare complication. Although this was highly unfortunate and understandably traumatic, it did not mean that the treatment she had received was unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which his pain relief medication was handled by the prison health centre. Mr C has osteoporosis (a condition causing weakness of the bones) and had been prescribed tramadol (a strong opioid painkiller). He was unhappy that there was little discussion or information about why it was being stopped. He was also unhappy that the board failed to provide relevant information in their response to his complaint.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser who is a GP. We found that, when reviewing Mr C's medication, the health centre acted in line with Scottish national guidelines on the management of chronic pain and on prescribing. Tramadol was not the only type of painkiller that could be used to treat Mr C's pain, and there is a lack of evidence for the long-term use of opioids for chronic pain. We considered it reasonable that the health centre tried alternative painkillers on the basis that further review took place.

We concluded that reasonable attempts were made by the health centre, and in the board's complaint response, to explain why the medication was being reduced and then stopped.

Summary

Mr C has had contact with mental health services in the board area since 1997, and his complaint concerned the care and treatment he received from 2004 until 2014. Mr C said it was clear he had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder throughout his contact with mental health services during this period, but that the board failed to diagnose him with this or provide appropriate treatment, such as trauma-focussed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Mr C complained this meant that he was unable to return to work and effectively 'lost' ten years of his life.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers who specialises in psychiatry. We found that the action taken by each mental health practitioner following contact was reasonable, and there had been no indication that trauma-focussed CBT should have been preferred to the treatment given.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board provided him with unreasonable dental care and treatment. He also said that they delayed in dealing with his dental problems that developed as a result.

We took independent advice from a dental surgeon. We found that, although one of Mr C's teeth had to be removed shortly after it had been treated, an initial examination and x-ray before treatment had confirmed that it was deeply decayed. Mr C wanted to retain his tooth and so the decay had been removed and his tooth had been filled. The tooth did not settle and Mr C then asked for it to be removed. Mr C subsequently asked the board to provide him with an implant or a bridge, but these options were not available to him, mainly because his teeth were severely compromised by gum disease. We did not uphold his complaint.