Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the infection control procedures used by Raigmore Hospital when he had a total hip replacement.

When Mr A attended the pre-operative assessment when he was first scheduled for surgery, it was found that he had an in-growing toenail and surgery was delayed until this was treated. When the operation was re-scheduled, additional testing was undertaken to establish if Mr A had any on-going underlying infection and all the tests were negative. The operation took place and during the surgery samples of fluid and tissue were taken for laboratory analysis and Mr A was also given precautionary antibiotics (drugs used to fight bacterial infections). The samples taken were positive for infection which proved very difficult to eradicate, resulting in a long recovery period for Mr A, including that his hip replacement implant had to be removed while the infection was treated and then a new implant put in.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers who was satisfied that the board's infection control procedures were compliant with national guidance and that these procedures were followed appropriately. The adviser commented that no testing can fully eliminate the possibility of deep-seated infection and the adviser was of the view that the infection present in Mr A's hip during his operation had probably originated from his previous in-growing toenail. The adviser also considered that the fact that Mr A was a diabetic contributed to the lengthy recovery period as diabetics do not fight infections as quickly as non-diabetics.

Summary

Ms C had been referred to a hospital specialist by the practice as she had reported having blood in her sputum (spit). She was told that she had developed terminal cancer. Ms C complained to the practice that she had reported the same symptoms to them for a number of years and that they had only prescribed antibiotics for a burst blood vessel in her throat.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser and found that Ms C had a long history of chronic blood streaked throughout her sputum and that it had previously been investigated by specialists. The presumed diagnosis was inflammation of Ms C's pharynx (back of throat) aggravated by a chronic cough. The plan was that further investigations were not required unless there was a significant change in her symptoms or that new symptoms had developed. When a GP arranged a further x-ray for a possible diagnosis of lower respiratory infection, it was noted that Ms C had a lesion in her chest which was not present in a previous x-ray. This resulted in a further referral for specialist investigations and it was then discovered that Ms C had a lung tumour. There was no evidence to suggest that there had been a previous significant change in Ms C's symptoms which the practice had not taken action on and, when it became clear that the situation had altered, timely and appropriate action was taken in order to reach a definitive diagnosis. We did not uphold the complaint.