Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not thoroughly investigated her concerns about the conduct of an employee. Mrs C also complained about the time taken to investigate her concerns.

While we were unable to release further information to Mrs C during the investigation, as it was protected third party information, we were able to see that the council had thoroughly investigated Mrs C's concerns. While the investigation had taken longer than anticipated, there was good reason for this and the council were actively investigating throughout that time. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Ms C submitted a housing application for relocation to a different property. She listed a number of areas where she would be prepared to live. She identified a property in her preferred area which was empty and expressed her interest in it to the council. She was told that the property was occupied, however, her interest in it was noted by the council. Ms C was subsequently contacted by the council regarding a second property in another area. She went to view it, but later declined it.

In the meantime, Ms C had learned that the first property had become available. However, she was told that as she had 'pre-accepted' the other property she had been taken off the allocations list pending her viewing of the other property. The original property was allocated to another applicant.

Ms C complained that she had never 'pre-accepted' the other property and had only agreed to view it. She also complained that her note of interest in the first property was not taken into account and the council provided her with inaccurate information regarding her status on the allocations list.

We found that although inaccurate information was issued to Ms C, this was then rectified appropriately. With regard to the allocations process, we accepted the council’s position that a 'pre-acceptance' process is applied to all applicants. This means that one applicant cannot be offered two properties simultaneously, and ensures a fair and efficient process. We found that, whilst Ms C was temporarily taken off the allocations list while she considered the other property, this did not affect her chances of securing the first property. The first property was categorised for allocation to applicants with a priority need for which Ms C did not qualify. Whilst some of the council’s communication could have been clearer, we were satisfied that Ms C’s application was considered appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained to our office about the council's actions when considering a number of amendments to a planning application for a house being constructed near to his home. He was unhappy that the council had granted planning consent for changes to the building which required a significant amount of under-building, below ground level, which he felt was contrary to the local development plan and which he said had been refused for a neighbouring property. He was also unhappy that the council considered changes to the dimensions of the proposed building, which required an increase in under-building, as a non-material variation rather than as a full planning application.

Although we did not review the original planning consents for this building as they were granted some years ago, and before Mr C purchased his property, we did review the recent planning applications and non-material variations considered by the council. We reviewed the application which considered the installation of a retaining wall resulting in a large area of exposed concrete, making the construction significantly more visible from Mr C's property, and we also took independent advice from our planning adviser. From our review we were satisfied that the planning officer properly detailed the impact of this proposal in his report, noted the relevant development plan policies which were relevant in this case and provided details of his assessment of the application. We also noted that the officer had recommended that conditions be imposed in order to mitigate against the impact of this large area of wall, including raising of the ground level, tree planting and stone cladding. We also noted that each of the non-material variations to the original planning consent were for minor amendments which did not raise additional material planning issues. As a result of this, we were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to assess the application as presented to them and had properly considered minor amendments to the original application as non-material amendments. As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with these matters, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C lives near a former quarry site where planning permission was granted for the erection of buildings and stabilisation works some years ago. When works began she became concerned that the site was operating as a quarry and outside the planning conditions imposed by the council. She complained to the council about this.

The council responded that the developments appeared to be progressing in accordance with the relevant approvals. They said that no conditions had been made in relation to the specific matters that Mrs C raised and that there had been no breaches of the planning conditions, but that concerns about these matters had been passed to relevant departments.

Mrs C was dissatisfied with the council’s responses and complained to us that the council's statement that there had been no breaches of planning conditions was inaccurate. Mrs C's specific concern was that the site was operating outside the times set out in the conditions relating to the two approvals.

After investigating Mrs C's complaint, we found that the operating times stated in the conditions related to after the development had been completed, not during its construction and, therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's handling of repairs to the communal roof of her building. She had made complaints over a number of years about the problem of water penetration of the roof. Miss C said that previous roof repairs had not been successful and further repairs carried out in March 2014 were the subject of her complaint.

Miss C said that despite the March 2014 repairs being carried out, the roof was still leaking, and that this was having a detrimental effect on her family's health. The council accepted that there had been occasions when the work could have been arranged in a more efficient manner and as a consequence avoided some of the delays that were experienced. However, they explained that, as they use the services of an external scaffolding contractor, this can be a time consuming process.

The council carried out a further inspection in November 2014 and further work was carried out. The council indicated that they were satisfied that the roof was watertight. We were satisfied that the council's response to the complaints of water ingress was reasonable and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the mental health care and treatment that her child had received. Mrs C considered that her concerns about autistic spectrum disorders and physical factors had not been taken into account by the board. She was also concerned that her child was not seen soon enough and was not assessed by appropriate staff. While recognising the complexity and severity of her child's condition, the board did not find evidence to support Mrs C's concerns during their consideration of her complaint.

After taking independent advice from a psychiatric adviser specialising in child and adolescent mental health, we found that the actions taken by the board were reasonable. There was no evidence that there had been unreasonable delays in the assessment of Mrs C's child, or that the care and treatment provided was inappropriate. The adviser highlighted that the board’s liaison with another service was good and found nothing to suggest that the child had been misdiagnosed.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of Mr A about the care and treatment he received from the medical practice. Mrs C said Mr A, who has cerebral palsy, was seen by doctors at the practice for a year with sharp abdominal pains but the practice failed to diagnose that Mr A had a hernia (a condition where an internal part of the body pushes through a weakness in the muscle or surrounding tissue wall). Mrs C also complained that one of the doctors at the practice failed to carry out a physical examination of Mr A at one of the appointments.

We obtained independent medical advice from one of our GP advisers. They said that they could see no evidence in Mr A’s medical records that he had either the symptoms or signs of a hernia during the 12 months that he was seen by the practice, and that the hernia identified at the end of the 12 months was most likely a new presentation. We found that Mr A was provided with a reasonable standard of care by the practice.

Our adviser also explained that there was no requirement for a patient to be examined for a chronic condition every time they attended a GP practice and that if a patient presented with new symptoms or a significant change, then an examination would be reasonable. When Mr A was seen by the doctor, he did not present with any new symptoms, and as he had been seen 24 hours previously by a senior surgical doctor at Perth Royal Infirmary for an examination, we did not consider it unreasonable that the doctor did not physically examine Mr A. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he called the out-of-hours (OOH) service, the first GP he spoke to did not provide proper care or treatment. Mr C said the GP had been unable to access his medical records and had refused to admit him to hospital, offering an appointment at the OOH centre, which Mr C could not attend because of the level of pain he was suffering. When Mr C had called the OOH service the following morning, a second GP arranged for an ambulance to take him to hospital, where his knee was then treated. Mr C said the second GP had told him that the first GP would have been able to access his medical records and that hospital admission was the only appropriate treatment for his knee.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. They said that Mr C did not constitute an emergency case, and that the first GP had acted appropriately by not admitting him to hospital. The second GP had not followed procedure in arranging Mr C's admission for treatment which meant that Mr C had an unreasonable expectation of what the first GP should have done. We found that the first GP had acted reasonably and in line with the board's policies in the care and treatment he had provided. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way he was treated by an ambulance crew who attended his home following a fall. He felt that the crew had handled him badly, and said that they did not fit a neck brace or transport him to the ambulance using a stretcher. On arrival at hospital it was established that Mr C had suffered a fracture of the second vertebra. The board explained that the crew had carried out a thorough assessment and could not detect any tenderness to the vertebrae of Mr C's neck or back, and there were no signs of nervous system damage. There was some mild tenderness on the left side of the neck but this was over the soft tissue area. Current UK guidelines say immobilisation is not required if there is no central spinal tenderness. The crew decided there was no requirement for a neck brace based on the symptoms reported, and no detectable signs of spinal injury at the time.

We sought independent advice from a medical adviser with experience in the training of paramedics. The adviser had no concerns about the actions of the ambulance crew, and was satisfied that they had acted in accordance with the guidelines concerning the treatment of patients with neck and back injuries.

Summary

Ms C complained that her GP practice had failed to diagnose her or refer her appropriately, despite consistent reports of stomach pain. This pain persisted until she was diagnosed with Helicobacter infection (Helicobacter pylori is a germ that can live in the stomach), and it was successfully treated. Ms C said she felt she had been ignored and treated with a lack of respect. Ms C added that, even once Helicobacter infection had been diagnosed, she felt the practice had not treated her within a reasonable time-frame.

We took independent advice from one of our GP advisers. The advice received was that the practice had followed national guidelines in its attempts to diagnose and treat Ms C for the pain she was experiencing. The practice performed the appropriate tests on Ms C and it was noted that, on occasion, she had declined medical advice and declined appropriate referrals, which would have speeded up her diagnosis.

On the basis of the advice received, we found that the practice had acted reasonably and that they had not delayed in referring Ms C for specialist opinion.