Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way that the council dealt with various planning applications concerned with drilling and the exploration and development of coal bed methane from early 2007 until 2009, when an application was submitted for the formation of a gas compressor station. These applications were all approved subject to conditions. Then, from 2011 until 2013, further applications were made to vary the timescales of the permissions that had been granted earlier.

Mrs C complained that the council should not have considered the applications on an individual basis and that this should have been considered to be a major development. She also believed that planning officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the matters nor did they ensure appropriate public consultation. In reply, the council said that due process had been followed throughout.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation found that the council had considered the applications in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. Similarly, they followed legislation when varying the timescales applying. There was no evidence to suggest that the developments constituted a major development or that officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the applications. All the planning applications had been publicly advertised and requirements for neighbour notification fulfilled.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the development of a property near to Mr A's house. During the building works, the council was alerted to the possibility that the property was not being built in accordance with the planning permission. It was later established that the property was not built in accordance with the planning permission, and the council issued a section 33A notice (a form of enforcement action which requires a new planning application to be submitted for consideration).

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action during construction when they were first made aware of the breach. Mr C also complained that the council had then not taken reasonable enforcement action once the breach was established.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. They concluded that it was reasonable of the council not to take any action during construction until they had established whether or not a breach had occurred. The adviser was also satisfied that the council had the discretion to choose whether to take enforcement action (which they did) and what form that it should take. Although the council did not intend to take any further enforcement action, this was a discretionary decision for the council to make. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had removed items from her husband's grave. We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant policy (management rules for burials and cemeteries) and made reasonable efforts to inform Ms C in advance of the action. For this reason, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was offered a property by the council, as he had been living in temporary accommodation. Mr C was unhappy with the condition of the property he was offered, and said that the bathroom, kitchen and windows were all in need of repair. Mr C had written to complain to the council about the property, but they said that they were satisfied that the property was suitable to be let out.

The council has a policy that sets out their criteria for determining the condition of properties, and, in line with this, their repairs team carried out some repairs on the property that they viewed as necessary. However, the council also said that cosmetic aspects, such as the fitting of tiles in the bathroom, were the responsibility of the tenant rather than the council. As the council's responses to Mr C were in line with their policy on this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that her housing association had failed to process her Right to Buy application properly. As a result, she had been charged four months' rent unnecessarily. The association had offered her a refund of two months' rent, in recognition of the delay in completing the Right to Buy process.

Our investigation found that the delay was due to a problem with the documentation of Ms C's property. This was unforeseeable and could not be attributed to a failure by any party. We also found that the association had kept Ms C's solicitors fully informed of the issue. The association had also suggested a way of mitigating any delays, however, Ms C's solicitors had refused to agree to this, which had extended the process. Ms C's solicitors had accepted the offer of two months' rent in recognition of the delay and it was, therefore, reasonable for the association to consider that Ms C was content with their offer. We found on the basis of the evidence available that the association had acted reasonably, and that there was no basis for Ms C receiving further compensation for the delay she had experienced.

Summary

Miss C said that she and her mother (Mrs C) had lived in their house for more than 35 years but that, in 2012, they began to suffer noise nuisance from their neighbours. Despite complaining at the time and since, they said that no action had been taken. Miss C complained that the housing association's housing officer did little to assist them and also provided misinformation about Mrs C's rehousing prospects. She also complained that no action had been taken on complaints of dampness.

Our investigation showed that Mrs C first raised concerns about noise nuisance in May 2013 but that at that time she did not wish to pursue matters. A few weeks later, as the problem was persisting, the association arranged for Mrs C and her neighbour to enter into mediation but the neighbour subsequently changed her mind. No further reports of noise were made although Miss C expressed herself dissatisfied with the association's actions. In the meantime, in September 2013, Mrs C was awarded medical priority and she was unhappy not to have been rehoused. However, it appeared that the type of property she wanted rarely became available. There were others who had longer-standing priority and her application was being treated in accordance with the association's allocations policy. With regard to outstanding repairs about dampness, this had only been mentioned in November 2014 and the association had responded appropriately. There was no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had acted unreasonably.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the housing association's invoice for repairs to his former property. The charges related to work done after he had moved out, but Mr C felt he had left the property in a good condition which meant he was not liable for the full amount.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. Our investigation found that, from an administrative perspective, the evidence showed that Mr C was responsible for certain repairs. Either he could carry them out or the association could, and they would charge him. This was detailed in letters they sent him, their tenant handbook and also the relevant policy. They also provided a copy of their inspection worksheet (completed after Mr C left the property) and it reflected the repairs that were ultimately charged for.

Although Mr C disputed the invoice, the evidence available was limited. The paperwork showed the association had taken Mr C's concerns into account and reduced the invoice after he provided evidence that certain issues should not have been charged. However, the remaining evidence, on balance, did not support his claim that the additional charges were incorrect or that there had been maladministration. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she had contacted the practice in the late afternoon to request that a GP attend and assess her partner (Mr A)'s mental health condition as she was seriously concerned that he was having a psychotic episode. Mr A was at another address and she was concerned about his safety. The GP listened to Mrs C's concerns and sought advice from the mental health services. It was decided that it would not be appropriate for them to visit Mr A that evening and that a visit would be made the following morning. Mrs C subsequently reported Mr A missing to police and he was found dead near to the address that Mrs C had highlighted. The GP explained that he had taken Mrs C's concerns seriously, and that he had sought specialist advice and reviewed Mr A's previous medical history and, as there was no immediate risk to Mr A or others, a visit the following morning was appropriate.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser who felt that the GP had not put himself in a position to obtain a first hand assessment of Mr A's mental health condition. The adviser felt that Mrs C's information was concerning enough to warrant action that evening. However, after careful consideration we felt that the GP had acted appropriately by seeking advice from the mental health services about Mr A's previous contact with them, and that there was no indication that Mr A was at risk to himself or others at the time. We found that the GP had treated Mrs C's concerns seriously and that a mental health assessment was appropriate, but that it could wait until the following morning. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the board because she said she had concerns about the way in which it managed her waiting time before she received a clinic appointment. She also complained about the appointment itself, the examination and conclusions. Mrs C said she was left frustrated and depressed as a consequence, and sought private treatment to have a knee operation. She said that, if the board had treated her appropriately, this should have been the outcome of her clinic appointment.

We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a surgeon specialising in the musculoskeletal system). We found that in relation to waiting times, the board followed Scottish Government guidance. As Mrs C had informed the board that she would not be available for three periods of time during the indicated waiting time period (12 weeks), her waiting time was put back by a similar time. In the event, she was seen 13 weeks after the appointment was requested. Similarly, notwithstanding her private treatment, Mrs C's examination and management of her knee problem was in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that, during a phone consultation, an out-of-hours GP asked a care home nurse if Ms C's father (Mr A) had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) note in his records. Ms C said the GP asked about the DNACPR with the implication that, if there was one in place, the GP should not bother coming to visit Mr A. Ms C also complained that the GP inappropriately prescribed amoxicillin (an antibiotic drug used to treat bacterial infection) to Mr A, which she said was not effective for him, and could be detrimental to his health.

We looked at Mr A's clinical records and a copy of the board's complaint file, and we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We asked the board for the audio recording of the phone call between the GP and the care home nurse, but it was no longer available. We found that DNACPR refers to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in circumstances where a patient's heart stops, and does not refer to any other element of a patient's clinical care. We concluded that it was normal for a triaging doctor (triage is the process of deciding which patients should be treated first based on how ill or injured they are) to ask whether a DNACPR form has been completed for a patient.

We also found that there was nothing in the available medical records to indicate that Mr A was allergic to amoxicillin. We concluded that the final prescribing decision has to lie with the doctor who is assessing the patient at the time, that the GP prescribed medication in line with relevant guidance, and that Mr A was provided with a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.