Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment provided to his late father (Mr A) when he was admitted to Biggart Hospital for a mental health assessment. While in hospital, Mr A's condition deteriorated and he stopped eating and drinking. His medication was amended but Mr A subsequently died of an infection. Mr C felt that Mr A's deterioration was due to the medication prescribed for his mental health problems. He also said that, despite repeatedly reporting his concerns to staff, they did not take his views into account.

The board said that Mr A had been prescribed appropriate medication for his mental health issues, that his medications were continually monitored, and that they were amended in view of the changes to Mr A's clinical condition. They also explained that there was evidence of regular communication with Mr C.

After taking independent advice from a medical adviser who is a consultant in old age psychiatry, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the doctors involved in Mr A's care provided appropriate treatment for his physical and mental health symptoms. The medications prescribed were appropriate, and were closely monitored and amended when required. We also found that the staff were fully aware of Mr C's concerns about his father's treatment, and that they took these concerns into account when setting up the treatment plan.

Summary

Mr C said that the board failed to follow Scottish Government procedures on NHS continuing healthcare which resulted in his father (Mr A) not being assessed for continuing healthcare when he should have been. Mr C said that if an assessment had been carried out, Mr A would have had care provided by the NHS and would not have had to pay around £45,000 for residential care in a private nursing home.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who specialises in care of the elderly. We found that Mr A did not meet the criteria for continuing care. Having said that, the process was not as clear as it should have been to Mr C. The board accepted that the decision about whether or not to provide NHS continuing care should be fully explained to the family at the time of an assessment. The board took this issue forward with healthcare staff. Given that the guidance has been superseded and the process changed since June 2015, and that the communication issue had been taken forward by the board, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines when considering his view that his health problems should be taken into account when awarding a grade for his project. Mr C also said the university did not tell him why his health problems did not count as a case of 'good cause'. According to the university's regulations, 'good cause' means illness or other adverse personal circumstances affecting an individual and resulting in that individual either missing an examination, failing to submit coursework on time, or clearly prejudicing their performance in the assessment. In addition, Mr C complained that the university did not follow their guidelines on the discretion to promote his degree classification.

We found that the university had followed their guidelines on 'good cause'. Mr C wanted the university to tell him what else he could have done to show that his health problems were a case of 'good cause'. The university said that the various doctors' letters Mr C provided did not alter the initial conclusion reached by a board of examiners, which was that he did not have 'good cause'. We were satisfied that the university told Mr C why his submission of 'good cause' was dismissed. We also found that the university followed their guidelines when they decided not to promote Mr C's degree classification.

Mr C did not accept the university's position and disagreed with it. However, these were decisions the university were entitled to reach after considering the relevant evidence. We explained to Mr C that disagreement with the university's decisions or with their interpretation of matters was not evidence of an administrative failing on their part. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C started a part-time distance learning masters degree course at the university. Within a few weeks she found that she was struggling with the course and she left. The university said they could only refund 40 percent of Miss C's course fees, because this was all they would offer to students who left between 31 January and 31 May in any year. Miss C complained about this, and that the university had not told her soon enough that the course was for practicing professionals with excellent IT skills and a good level of maths and, therefore, was unsuitable for her. Miss C also complained that the university ignored her main complaint that she should not have been accepted onto the course.

We found that Miss C had not read much information about the course before she applied. The university website said the course was for practicing professionals, and that the course included IT, probability and finance-related numeracy. As an applicant to the course, it was Miss C's responsibility to read the relevant information in order to decide whether this was the right course for her. If she was in any doubt, Miss C could have contacted the university to discuss whether for the course was suitable for her.

We looked at the university's file on Miss C's complaint, and it was clear that they had considered her complaint about being admitted to the course, although the university acknowledged it was not covered in the report they sent to her. The university also acknowledged that they had made an error in offering Miss C a 40 percent refund. Their tuition fee refund policy was clear that no refund should be offered for the course Miss C was studying, where the course had been started or where a student had received the learning materials. The university said that as they had made the offer of a 40 percent refund, even though it was against their policy, they would honour the offer. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had unreasonably charged his bowling club a return to sewer rate (the percentage of water that is returned to the sewer) of 95 percent. Mr C had applied for this to be reduced after finding out that another bowling club in the area had been given a lower return to sewer rate, which reduced their water charges. Business Stream reduced Mr C's bowling club's return to sewer rate to 75 percent from the date on which Mr C applied for this. Mr C considered that the bowling club had been paying the wrong rate and that this should have been backdated.

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 had demonstrated to Scottish Water's satisfaction that such an allowance was justified. It stated that this was the point at which a full application, including all relevant information, was 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. It says that it will only ever be applied going forward and not backdated. In view of all of this, we found Business Stream had acted in line with their policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not respond to his complaint to them.

Our investigation showed that the officer who would have replied to the complaint considered that the language and tone of it were inappropriate, and that he told Mr C this, inviting him to resubmit the complaint with more appropriate wording. Mr C did so, and the officer then replied to the complaint.

We considered it was important that the officer did not simply refuse to answer the complaint. He explained to Mr C what he thought was wrong with it and gave him the chance to put that right. When Mr C followed his advice, he replied to the complaint. We considered that was an appropriate approach.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when, during roadworks, the council withdrew the normal bus service to his village. They said they did this because the process of keeping bus operators and the public informed as the roadworks progressed was complex and likely to fail. They considered that a taxi-bus service was the best solution based on experience at other locations. Mr C disagreed, saying that the actions taken by the council were disproportionate and created more disruption than was necessary.

Our investigation considered how the decision was taken and how it was communicated. We found that the council took the decision to keep public buses out of the village during roadworks because road closures would require them to reverse, which is considered unsafe. The local bus service was advised of this. We also found that, before the works started, the council held a public exhibition, they issued letters to residents and businesses, and they placed a notice in the local newspaper and in public areas. The information provided included details about the replacement taxi-bus service. This meant that the council had followed their policy, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a track running next to her house on land she owned was included in a public list of core paths identified by the council, intended to give walkers and cyclists recreational access throughout an area. Mrs C thought she, her neighbour and the Forestry Commission had the exclusive right to use the track. She said nobody consulted with her directly before including the track in the core path network. We found there was a general right of access for walkers and cyclists to land and inland water throughout Scotland. Mrs C provided no evidence that her track was excluded from this and we found that, even before the track was designated as a core path, people had the right to walk on it. We found that the council were not obliged to consult directly with individual landowners under the legislation and concluded that the council's public consultation had been reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her 14 year old son had been shown a sex education video that was unreasonably graphic and that when she requested details about the content of the remainder of the course, these were not provided. As a consequence, she removed her son from the school's relationships, sexual health and parenthood (RSHP) course but complained that he was unreasonably treated by staff who she said tried to bully him to return.

All the information provided by Mrs C and the council was given careful consideration but there was no evidence to show that the council had been unreasonable in their provision of information. Mrs C was offered the opportunity to see and discuss the material about which she was concerned and reassured that it had been approved by all local councils, the NHS and Police Scotland. She was sent leaflets and directed to a website for further information; they offered to give her a week's notice of subjects on the course concerned. While the school agreed that it was Mrs C's decision to remove her son from the sex education part of the RSHP course, they did not condone the fact that she removed him from the entire course and advised her that this was contrary to Education Guidelines. In the circumstances, they were entitled to write to her and talk to her son about his absence from class. There was no evidence that he had been bullied or put under unreasonable pressure. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about a kitchen upgrade and rewiring work at her property. She said the council did not communicate properly with her and were responsible for delays in carrying out the work. We did not find evidence that the council's communication was at fault. They met with Ms C in advance of the works and gave her a printed information leaflet explaining the tenant's responsibilities as well as the council's. Ms C said she was not able to be at the property on the morning work was due to start, so had left a key with her neighbour and had asked them to look out for the council.

There was evidence from the council's van tracking system that the workmen were on site at the time Ms C said she was told to expect them. After waiting for around 45 minutes, the work was called off. Ms C said nobody contacted her. The council said they did not have a mobile phone number for her. We concluded that a better arrangement would have been for Mrs C to tell the council she was leaving a key with her neighbour so that it could have been collected. Although this resulted in two days' delay, we concluded this was not the council's fault as work schedules of the different trades involved had to be rearranged. We found there was a further delay of three working days when water was found under the floor of Mrs C's home. Although this undoubtedly had an impact on Mrs C, we found it was not an unreasonable or excessive delay in the circumstances.

Ms C felt the council failed to acknowledge the disruption to her or provide her with assistance. We did not find evidence of this. The council's leaflet clearly acknowledged that the works were intrusive and disruptive, and Ms C received the disruption grant she was entitled to in accordance with the council's policy.