Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his son (Mr A). Mr C was in dispute with the council about the level of support offered to his son, who is dyslexic, during his physics national 5 examination. Mr C said that the support was inadequate and did not assist Mr A and allow him to perform at the best of his ability. The council maintained that the support plan made and agreed for Mr A, informed by a psychological/educational report and Mr A's teachers, was fulfilled.

The complaint was investigated and all the complaints correspondence and Mr A's support plan was given careful consideration. This showed that Mr A was to be provided with the use of a laptop, digital question papers and extra time and that these were available to him for use in his physics examination. However, Mr A had declined to use them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of Miss A and Mr A, about the handling of a planning application and building certificates for a development close to their home. They said that the new house had tapped into their shared water supply pipe, and was causing a significant loss of water pressure and flow. They complained that the council should not have allowed this to happen, saying that it should have been evident through the planning and building standards procedures that water supply would be a significant issue.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers on the requirements of planning and building standards in relation to water supply. Our adviser said that the planning process includes a consultation with Scottish Water, which had been undertaken. However, he said that the provision of water to a site was not a material issue in a planning decision, and that the consultation was a way to advise the developer of issues that might arise during the development process. He also said that building standards work to a set of regulations. These do not make any specific requirements about water provision for a development, other than in relation to access to water for fire-fighting, and requirements about lead piping. The developer is expected to consult with Scottish Water before applying for a building warrant, but again, this is on an advisory basis.

We did not uphold the complaints, as we found that the council had taken appropriate account of water supply to the new development in their decisions within the planning and building standards procedures. We noted that accessing water from the shared supply pipe may be a civil, legal matter, and was not something over which the council had any control.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the housing association had considered his complaints about anti-social neighbours. He did not think they had taken appropriate steps to investigate his concerns about the noise two separate neighbours were making.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. This meant we compared the steps they had taken against the steps their policy said they should have taken for such matters. However, it was not for us to assess whether, or to what extent, Mr C was suffering from anti-social behaviour.

The evidence indicated that, although Mr C was unhappy, the association had acted in line with their policy. Mr C had wanted noise monitoring equipment to be installed, but the evidence showed they had contacted the council about this on Mr C's behalf. However, the council said it would be their decision – not the association's – as to whether equipment would be installed. We recognised the significance of this matter for Mr C, but we did not consider the evidence showed that the association had not believed Mr C as he had alleged, or that they failed to investigate matters appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C was awarded housing points following a series of reports of anti-social behaviour. These points placed Miss C higher on the waiting list for an appropriate property. When the co-operative introduced a new housing points scheme, Miss C's points were removed. Miss C complained that she had not been informed her points could be removed.

We found that the co-operative had informed tenants of the change of policy by sending a summary of the policy and instructions about how to re-apply for points. To apply for the sort of points Miss C had, she had to submit supporting evidence. When Miss C submitted her application form, she did not supply supporting evidence and so her points were removed. For these reasons, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C and her family had experienced problems of serious anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who was also a tenant of the same housing association. She complained to us that the association had unreasonably failed over a period of years to take appropriate action, had unreasonably failed to help her with an offer of transfer to another house, and had unreasonably required her to pay rent arrears before agreeing to a mutual house exchange.

Following our investigation, we found that although Mrs C told us that complaints had been made by others to the association about the family of the neighbour who was the subject of her complaint over the course of several years, she had not complained to the association until 2014 about this. The evidence confirmed that the association had dealt with her complaints about anti-social behaviour reasonably and within the relevant policy. Further, when we looked at the association's handling of Mrs C's request to them to move, and her application for mutual exchange, although she complained that she had been required to pay rent up to when she moved out, this complied with their policy. Furthermore, Mrs C's complaint that the association had not offered her a payment plan to pay off her arrears rather than demand these were paid before the mutual exchange could be agreed was not unreasonable as this again was a matter of policy. We recognised that the situation had been stressful for Mrs C and that the move was something she felt she had to pursue. However, in their handling of the matter, we found that the housing association had acted correctly.

Summary

Miss C experienced problems with her boiler after a service carried out by the housing association's contractor. The problems were not immediately resolved and, after receiving advice from the association, she decided to turn off her boiler and the association decided that a new boiler should be installed. She said she did not have full tenancy as she was restricted to one room because inadequate heaters were supplied and she had no heating until the installation was carried out over a week later. As she was without adequate heating and hot water for a period she complained that she was entitled to withhold her rent. The association did not uphold her complaint.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Miss C and the association, the tenancy agreement and the association's complaints handling procedure and their investigation. We found that the association had responded promptly to the issues Miss C had raised and had thoroughly investigated her complaints. Their decision that Miss C was not entitled to withhold part of her rent was reasonable as they had not failed in their obligations to her as a tenant when she decided to turn off her boiler contrary to advice she was given.

Summary

Mr C complained that his dental practice had failed to make a referral to the dental hospital within a reasonable timescale. Mr C had teeth which required extraction, and he said that it had taken a long time to get an appointment for this procedure to be carried out. Mr C had other health conditions which meant that once they had received his referral, the dental hospital had made contact with other health professionals involved in Mr C's care to ensure that his treatment could take place. Whilst we recognised that the delay was frustrating for Mr C, we did not find any evidence that any delay was caused by the practice.

Mr C also complained that he had been asked to make a payment to secure an appointment with his dentist and was told this was because he had previously cancelled appointments. Mr C was unhappy with this as he said he had always had good reason to cancel and had given sufficient notice. We considered that the dentist had acted reasonably as Mr C had cancelled a number of appointments late or failed to attend. It was, therefore, not unreasonable for the dentist to apply the practice's policy of charges for failed appointments.

Summary

Mr C sustained an injury to his right hip/leg, which he said was caused when he fell off a chair. Mr C attended the prison health centre regarding his injury on several occasions. Mr C complained that the prison health centre failed to provide him with appropriate care and treatment. He said there was an unreasonable delay in the prison health centre carrying out an x-ray of his hip. He also said the prison doctor inappropriately failed to see him at a scheduled appointment.

We obtained independent medical advice on the complaint from one of our advisers who is a GP. The evidence showed that Mr C had seven consultations with medical staff at the prison health centre over a four week period following his injury. Our adviser said that Mr C's assessment and management by the health centre staff was of a reasonable standard. She explained that Mr C's symptoms and risk factors were not consistent with a hip or pelvis fracture. She said an x-ray was not clinically necessary in Mr C's case and instead seemed to have been arranged after his request, rather than because of clinical suspicion of fracture. As such, she did not consider that Mr C's x-ray should have been done more quickly.

The board said Mr C's scheduled appointment with the prison doctor was cancelled because of security and health and safety reasons. Our adviser explained that health and safety decisions were taken in the best interests of both prisoners and staff and the prison heath centre's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Ms C said that after having two teeth filled, she began to experience progressively worsening pain. She said that this prevented her sleeping and caused her much distress. However, she said that her dental practice refused to provide her with further treatment on the basis that they considered the cause of her pain to be as a consequence of complex regional pain syndrome (a poorly understood condition where the person experiences persistent and debilitating pain) for which she had been diagnosed in 2008.

Ms C then left the practice. She said that the next day she attended an emergency appointment with another dentist. They determined that she had some decay, a dying nerve and a bleeding root canal and she was given treatment which she said provided immediate relief. She then complained that the original dentist failed to treat her appropriately.

We took independent advice from one of our dental advisers. The investigations showed that given Ms C's symptoms, the source of her pain had been difficult to establish and diagnose and that, in the circumstances, it had been reasonable to suggest that the cause was complex regional pain syndrome. We also established while an x-ray might have helped with a diagnosis, the dentist concerned had, nevertheless, provided Ms C with reasonable care and treatment. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board had handled his request for surgery under local anaesthetic unreasonably. This was because Mr C wanted to have his operation under a local anaesthetic but the board's surgeon only offered him a general or spinal anaesthetic. Mr C went to a private hospital to have his operation done under a local anaesthetic and he wanted the board to reimburse the cost.

We considered whether Mr C's treatment was reasonable in the circumstances at the time, which meant we would not uphold his complaint solely because he disagreed with the board or felt the treatment he received was not the best possible. We took independent medical advice from our adviser, who is a surgeon, who told us that the board's surgeon was entitled to refuse to operate under a local anaesthetic and that he had sought a second opinion from two of his colleagues. Although the board did not confirm to Mr C that none of their surgeons would have operated under a local anaesthetic until after he complained to them, we considered he could reasonably have followed this up with the board before choosing to have private surgery done.

Mr C also referred to the NHS website's reference to patient choices, but we did not consider this amounted to a universal guarantee that a patient would always get their preferred treatment. In light of the clear advice we received, we did not consider the evidence indicated that the board handled Mr C's request for a local anaesthetic unreasonably and we did not uphold his complaint.