Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C received a letter from her children’s school outlining the options available to the school in accommodating classes for the next academic year. Ms C believed that a further option was available that had not been considered, so she raised this with the school. The school distributed a second letter stating that this further option had been considered and outlining why it had been rejected. Ms C complained to the council about several aspects of the school's decision and then brought her complaints to us.

Ms C said that the potential further option had not been considered by the school. We considered that the reasons the school gave for the option being rejected had been referred to in their first letter and that, therefore, there was evidence that the option had been considered. We decided that, in these circumstances, there was no evidence of the alleged maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council as he said that plastering repairs to his property had been outstanding since he moved in and were still not completed over a year later. We found the council's records showed that he had been asked on a number of occasions to strip the wallpaper in his home to allow a full inspection to take place. The council had only received notification that this had taken place a couple of months prior to Mr C's complaint.

There had been some further delays since then, and the works had not been completed until around two months after the estimated completion date. However, the reasons for this were beyond the council's control, and we were satisfied from their records that they had taken reasonable action to ensure the works were completed as quickly as possible.

Summary

Ms A was a tenant of the council. After vacating her property, she received a bill for works to fix damage that had been caused by the installation and use of a dishwasher. She complained about this to the council as the dishwasher had been installed by the previous tenant. The council said that she had taken over the tenancy as a mutual exchange of properties with the previous tenant. She had signed an agreement to say that she was responsible for any repairs or replacements that the outgoing tenant had not dealt with. Ms A was dissatisfied and her partner (Mr C) brought her complaints to us. We found that the agreement was clear that Ms A was responsible and, therefore, there was no evidence of maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the association after they decided to suspend his housing application due to rent arrears with his current landlord. We found that the association had acted correctly, following all relevant policies, procedures, guidance and legislation. Their policy clearly stated that they may suspend an application when an applicant has housing debt greater than one month's rent payment, and when the applicant has not stuck to a repayment agreement for at least three months.

The tenancy reference they received from Mr C's landlord clearly stated that his rent arrears were greater than one month's rent payment, and that there had been a shortfall in his last payment. We found that they had the discretion to decide whether to suspend Mr C's application in these circumstances, and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that the housing association did not give him clear and consistent information about boundary fencing. We found that Mr C had raised the issue over a period of years and had spoken to different members of staff. We found that the development was open plan in design with open front gardens and enclosed rear gardens. We found that Mr C and the association did not agree about where the boundary was between Mr C's garden and an area of common ground. Ultimately we found that it was for the association (as Mr C's landlord) to say what the extent of the garden was. We found that there had been a lack of clear and consistent information from Mr C in terms of what he wanted, and when he was asked to complete the association's alterations form to clarify his request, he did not do so. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the practice had not contacted her to tell her about the need for blood tests to be repeated. The practice responded to her complaint advising that they held a recording of a phone conversation in which she was told about the need for blood tests to be repeated. They offered Mrs C the chance to hear the recording. Mrs C brought her complaints to us. We received a transcript of the call from the practice, which supported their view. We decided we would not pursue the matter further in those circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained that while his wife (Mrs C) was a patient in Murray Royal Hospital, she was assaulted by another patient and suffered a minor injury. The staff told him that Mrs C would be protected from the patient. Mrs C was then assaulted again by the patient and had to receive medical treatment for a severe injury to her eye. Mr C complained that the board staff had not taken appropriate action to prevent the second assault. The board maintained that the risk of the patient assaulting Mrs C on the second occasion was assessed as rare.

We obtained independent advice from two of our nursing advisers. They considered that there was no indication that the patient would assault Mrs C on the second occasion. We found that the board had taken appropriate action following both assaults, which would have greatly reduced the likelihood of a further assault.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment given to his son (Mr A) in the month before he died. Mr A had two consultations at the practice during this period. During the consultations he expressed concern about his mental health. At his second appointment he saw a locum GP, who noted that his mood was lower. They discussed whether he should be off work, and he was prescribed anti-depressants. He also completed two questionnaires in a public place within the practice. He later reported to Mr C that he had found it difficult to complete these in such a public place. Nine days later Mr A took his own life. The GPs involved both met with Mr C and his family in the weeks after his death, and a significant event analysis (SEA) was conducted four months later.

Mr C complained that Mr A was not given enough support when he needed it, that he should have been signed off work, and that the locum GP should have had greater involvement in the SEA.

We sought independent advice from one of our GP advisers, who reviewed Mr A's notes. She said that, on the basis of these notes, the discussions at both appointments had been reasonable, that due consideration had been given to Mr A's symptoms, and that his subsequent death could not have been predicted. The adviser was also satisfied that the SEA was in line with NHS guidance.

We considered that, while Mr A's death was tragic and a sad loss for his family, the care and treatment he had from the practice was reasonable, and the GPs involved could not have predicted that his mental health would decline as it did. We were satisfied that the SEA had been conducted in a reasonable manner, and appropriately took into consideration a report provided by the locum GP.

Summary

Mrs C complained that GPs at the practice failed to provide her late husband (Mr C) with appropriate treatment over an eight month period. Mr C had reported symptoms of stomach pains and cramps and, despite changes to his diet and medication, the symptoms persisted. Eventually Mr C asked to be referred to a gastroenterologist (a doctor specialising in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas) where it was diagnosed that he had a bowel blockage which turned out to be cancerous. The practice said that Mr C had shown signs of severe diverticulitis (a disease of the digestive system) for many years but had refused to give permission for investigations during that time. It was only recently that he had given permission for a referral to be made to hospital specialists who confirmed the diagnosis. Mrs C did not believe that the practice had sent reminder letters to Mr C and said that the practice should have followed this up.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. We found that the practice had acted appropriately in that they had documented that they had advised Mr C of the risks should he fail to have further investigations carried out. They also explained what further investigations were required and that it was his decision whether or not to agree to the further investigations and that he should reconsider the options at regular intervals. The practice were not responsible for arranging the further investigations but would have referred Mr C to hospital specialists who would decide which further investigations were appropriate.

Summary

Mrs C attended the emergency department at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with severe back pain and difficulty in walking. She complained that she should have had an urgent scan which would have identified that she needed to be referred for surgery. Mrs C also felt that the examination by the emergency doctor was inadequate.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers who is a consultant in emergency medicine. We found minor shortcomings with some aspects of Mrs C's examination. However, as there was no evidence of major motor weakness, we found that there was no failure in not arranging a scan at that time. We concluded that it was reasonable to discharge Mrs C from hospital with the advice to see her GP for a follow-up.