Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council issued a notice saying that work needed to be carried out urgently to preserve a listed building that he had agreed to buy. The council then arranged for the work to be carried out and charged the owners for the costs. When Mr C later bought the property, the sale included a clause that meant that any costs that the council pursued against the previous owners could be recovered from him. Mr C considered that the council should have allowed the sale to proceed and should have then given him time to arrange for the work to be carried out.

We found that it was reasonable for the council to issue the notice and to arrange for the work to be carried out when they did. The sale of the listed building had not been completed, and its condition was deteriorating. Without urgent council intervention, there would have been nothing to prevent further deterioration and damage. He was also unhappy as he believed that the council had not issued the notice correctly, but we did not find evidence that anything was wrong in this.

Mr C also complained about the advice the council gave him about his planning application in relation to the building. He said that he followed their advice and submitted the application, but this was refused. We found, however, that the application he had submitted was for more extensive development than he had previously discussed with the council. There was no evidence that the council had provided him with incorrect advice.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had not given him and the previous owners adequate advice about obtaining grants to restore the property. We found, however, that the council had provided adequate, timely and appropriate advice about grants both to him and to the previous owners.

Summary

Miss C and Mr B share custody of their child. Mr B lives in the town where their child's school is based and Miss C lives in a town a number of miles away. Miss C complained that the council were failing to provide her child with transport to and from school, from her address.

During our investigation we found the council were under no legal obligation to provide transport to school from multiple addresses. While Miss C and Mr B share custody of their child, one main residence has to be listed in order to determine which school the child is placed in. As this is not Miss C's residence the council are not required to provide transport from it. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a bar and restaurant near her home. She complained that the development did not adhere to the original plans and that this adversely impacted upon her privacy, the environment around her home and caused parking problems. She also complained that the council then approved a fresh planning application that permitted the development as constructed.

During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that the council accepted that the development did not reflect the original planning application and conditions. However, that was not in itself evidence of fault on the part of the council. We were satisfied that the council, in line with government guidance and their own enforcement charter, took reasonable action to require the developer to submit a fresh amended planning application, which we were satisfied dealt with the breaches in planning control which the council had identified. There was no evidence of fault in the council's handling of these matters.

Summary

Mr C complained that Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority failed to handle his planning application appropriately. He felt they had inappropriately contacted other organisations about his application and that they also failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

Mr C felt the park authority’s position with his planning application differed to their position with others. We took independent planning advice from our planning adviser and reviewed the evidence which, taken together, we did not consider indicated that the application had been handled inappropriately, and so did not uphold this complaint. Although we noted Mr C’s concerns about the park authority's contact with other organisations, our adviser said the park authority’s regular contact with other agencies reflected common practice (particularly between planning and roads authorities). We did not consider the evidence pointed to an administrative failing and, therefore, we did not uphold his second complaint.

Mr C had originally complained to the park authority by email, which they said they appeared not to have received. The park authority also said they appeared not have received Mr C’s subsequent email (he re-sent his original complaint). Mr C said he received no notification that his emails were not sent properly, but the park authority said they would not receive notification that somebody had tried to email them unsuccessfully. Instead, they said Mr C’s phone call (around four months after his original email) alerted them to his complaint. The evidence did not confirm whether the original emails had been sent successfully and we considered, once the park authority were aware of the matter, their handling of the complaint was reasonable. Mr C had been in touch with other park authority staff members throughout this time about separate matters and we considered he could have raised his concerns with the park authority sooner, if he felt there was a delay in them responding to his complaint. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a close family friend she took along to an independently chaired complaint meeting was not allowed to speak on Mrs C's behalf or ask questions. We found that Mrs C had been asked in advance whether she was bringing a representative and that she told the council she would only be bringing somebody to support her but not represent her. Therefore, we found that the council had acted reasonably.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about noise and air pollution from a nearby industrial site. The council looked into the matter but did not consider the problems to constitute a statutory nuisance. However, Mrs C did not feel that the council had taken sufficient steps to investigate her concerns and she was unhappy that they failed to take action against the site owners.

It was not our role to assess whether a nuisance existed as that was a matter for the council. The focus of our investigation was to establish whether the council acted in line with the appropriate procedures when investigating Mrs C’s complaints.

The available evidence demonstrated that the council made a significant number of visits to the area, and carried out tests, to determine whether or not a statutory nuisance existed. They also contacted relevant specialists for advice on measuring the air pollution concerns. They responded to each of the complaints of nuisance raised by Mrs C within an appropriate timeframe. While they could have done more to keep Mrs C up to date on the progress of their investigations, they had already acknowledged this and apologised to Mrs C. In the absence of any evidence of administrative failure in the way the council investigated the complaints of nuisance, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C told us that his landlord, the housing association, did not take reasonable action when he reported noise from loose floorboards in the flat upstairs. While Mr C’s home was not as well sound-proofed as a newly built property would be, there was no evidence that it did not meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard. The association had offered to come and have a final look at the floorboards to see if there was anything further they could do. We found there were some failings on the part of the association in concluding Mr C’s complaint in a timely manner, but they did all they could to improve the level of noise Mr C had been experiencing. They carried out repairs on three occasions and also did acoustic testing. While communication from the association could have been better, during the handling of Mr C’s complaint and after remedial work was completed, the actions taken were reasonable ones.

At the time of our decision they were having difficulty arranging a mutually agreeable time between Mr C and his upstairs neighbour. We explained to Mr C that the association had no control over his availability or that of his neighbour and that they had a limited amount of resources both in financial terms and in respect of the amount of time they could reasonably be expected to devote to this issue. We suggested to Mr C he agree to an appointment being arranged around his neighbour’s availability and at their convenience in order to allow the association the best chance of arranging an appointment.

We noted that the association had offered Mr C the option of being re-housed. Given that the evidence from previous remedial works was that the works had not offered a permanent solution to the disruption he experienced, we suggested he gave the association’s offer careful thought.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association forced entry to his flat, although he had contacted them before he left to tell them he would be away. He said they then unfairly charged him for replacing the locks and for draining the central heating system.

The association said that Mr C had not arranged for the water systems to be drained down, although they had asked him to do this when he first told them of his plans about a month before. He had called the association several times in the week before he left. However, they were able to provide recordings of most of these conversations, which showed that Mr C's son called about repairs to the stove handle, and not to arrange the draining down. As Mr C's first language was not English, we asked whether his tenancy agreement had been provided or explained in his own language. The association said it was not, but gave us a copy of a questionnaire that Mr C had completed, in which he had indicated that he was happy to receive information in English.

Our investigation found that, under the tenancy agreement, it was Mr C's responsibility to arrange for the water systems to be drained down, and there was no evidence that he had done this. We also found that the association were entitled to charge him for the drain down. They had initially offered to do this free of charge (as was their practice, although there was no policy or formal requirement for them to do so) but had decided to charge Mr C as they had to force entry to his house. We considered it was reasonable for them to charge in this case, given that Mr C had failed to arrange the work as required.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment Mr A was given by his medical practice in the weeks and days prior to his death.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers who is a GP. We found that Mr A, who had a history of pulmonary disease, was seen by a GP at home after complaining of nausea and dyspepsia and of being giddy for three days. We found his treatment to be appropriate. A month later, Mr A attended the practice again complaining of having had nausea and stomach pain for four days. He was examined appropriately and prescribed paracetamol with a plan to see him in five days. However, before this, the practice received a call to see Mr A at home as he had been vomiting. It was planned to visit him after the regular surgery but within a short time another call was made to the practice because Mr A was still vomiting and he had pains in his upper abdomen. A GP attended at Mr A's home and decided that he should be admitted to hospital and he returned to the practice to make the necessary arrangements for Mr A's transfer to hospital. An ambulance attended shortly afterwards but Mr A died before he could be transferred to hospital. Our investigation confirmed that none of this could have been predicted and that, despite Mr A's sudden death, he had been treated reasonably and appropriately, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his late father (Mr A) received during two admissions to St John’s Hospital. Mr C felt staff had not considered his father's electronic test results appropriately, particularly in relation to the level of sugar in his blood and whether he had an infection. Mr C also said that the board had failed to provide his father with appropriate medical treatment, and that this had contributed to Mr A’s death (which occurred during his second hospital admission).

As part of our investigation we took independent medical advice from one of our advisers, who explained that Mr A had been an elderly man who was most unwell. Although Mr C felt the test results showed his father had an untreated infection and diabetes, our adviser said this was only one possible explanation. Our adviser acknowledged it was possible that Mr A had an infection but he also said there were other possible explanations. In his professional view, Mr A’s test results neither pointed to an infection nor meant additional steps should reasonably have been taken. Our adviser did, however, say the board’s communication could have been better because Mr C appeared not to have realised just how unwell his father had been.

Mr C had made his concerns clear and we fully acknowledged the importance of this matter for him and his family. However, our role was to consider the reasonableness of the board’s care and treatment. We acknowledged that this was already a difficult time for Mr C, and that this would not have been aided by a lack of clear communication by clinical staff. However, taking everything into account, we did not find the evidence indicated the board failed to consider Mr A’s test results or provide appropriate medical treatment, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.