Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about their refusal to install a gas fire in her home when the existing one broke down and was replaced with an electric fire. Mrs C said that she offered to pay for a new gas fire but the council refused and advised her to use her gas central heating system. She was concerned that the electric fire would affect her asthma but was told that it was council policy to only install electric fires. Mrs C was unhappy that the gas central heating took longer to heat up, was unreliable, and more expensive to run when she needed to get up during the night because of suffering from other disabilities. She felt that the council may be in breach of their own disability policy by not allowing her to have a gas fire.

We found that the council had checked the gas central heating was properly working and they had arranged for advice to be given on how to heat her home efficiently but this was refused by her. We did not find evidence to show that the council had failed to follow their written procedures in terms of their gas safety policy or that their policy failed to meet Mrs C’s health and disability needs when refusing her a gas fire. They also made a prompt referral to social services to assess Mrs C’s health needs, although this was not carried out. The council said that this was because Mrs C refused the assessment but Mrs C said she was told it was unlikely social services could do anything about getting her a gas fire. We found no evidence that Mrs C was given this advice.

We were satisfied that the council had not dismissed her health concerns and noted that they remained willing to explore Mrs C's health needs and the options available. We found, therefore, that the council's actions were reasonable.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's communication with them in relation to their concerns about the release of personal information was unreasonable. They said that communication was vague, and failed to address their concerns and the specific points they had raised.

We found that there were errors in relation to information displayed on a section of the council's website. However, our investigation found that the council's communications with the couple about the matter had been clear and fully addressed their specific concerns. They had also previously apologised to Mr and Mrs C.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council rejected a new complaint following a complaints review panel. We found that the council had considered her complaint and had decided, as they were entitled to, that Mrs C was raising the same or similar points as had already been dealt with. In light of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had not followed appropriate and mandatory procedures when they approved a planning application, which removed a condition that local slate had to be used on a new visitor centre. When Ms C complained to the council her complaint was not upheld, but she said there had been bias towards the developer and appropriate checking of information was not carried out.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Ms C and the council, the detailed planning reports and planning committee meetings, as well as planning legislation and local plans. We found that the council had followed appropriate procedures when they amended the condition and had reasonably considered the slate options for the visitor centre. Although strong differences of opinion were expressed, the final decision of the planning committee to use a different slate was one they were entitled to take.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live on a road that was closed following a landslide. They complained that this was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below their street, and felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. They also complained about the length of time taken by the council to reach a decision as to what to do with their road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C lives on a road that was closed following a landslide. He complained that the landslide was caused by construction work at the foot of a steep embankment below his street. Mr C felt that the council did not give due consideration to the stability of the embankment when granting planning permission for the development. He also complained about the length of time the council took to decide what to do with the road.

We were satisfied that the council had identified the stability of the embankment as a potential issue when considering the planning application and that when granting planning consent they included a condition to try to address this. We found that it did take around two and a half years for them to decide to permanently close a section of the road. Whilst we felt this should be a source of concern for the council, we found that they had been actively working toward reopening the road during that time. The investigations they carried out and the necessary committee meetings had a cumulative impact that led to the delay, and we did not find any significant delays that the council could have avoided.

Summary

Mr C complained to the practice that he was concerned that his daughter (Miss A) had been inappropriately prescribed medication for bladder problems. He felt that this was not clinically indicated and was for convenience only, and that Miss A was at risk of side effects from the medication. The practice believed that the medication was appropriate for the symptoms Miss A presented with.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, an experienced GP. Our adviser was satisfied from the medical records that, given Miss A's reported symptoms of urinary frequency and medical history, the medication was appropriate. We found that the practice's actions in prescribing the medication was appropriate and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the board that a decision had been taken inappropriately to reduce the number of gluten-free foods available on prescription for his mother (Mrs A) who suffers from a coeliac condition. Previously Mrs A was prescribed 18 units and this had been reduced to 14 units. The board maintained that Mrs A had been appropriately assessed in accordance with national guidelines and in view of her medical condition. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, and found that the dietitian had carried out a thorough assessment and that the prescribing of 14 units was appropriate.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her husband (Mr C) received inadequate medical and nursing treatment after being admitted to the Western General Hospital. She was particularly concerned by a decision to place him on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP: a form of end of life care) which provides palliative care (care provided solely to prevent or relieve suffering). Mrs C believed that this decision hastened her husband's death, and pointed out that a hospice referral form appeared to give him a prognosis (forecast) of at least six months.

Our investigation found that Mr C had been admitted with a urine infection. He was, however, also suffering from advanced lung cancer, which had spread to his brain. Although his urine infection was successfully treated, Mr C deteriorated rapidly and a scan of his brain revealed that the cancer had spread faster and further than previously thought. We took independent medical advice from two advisers: a consultant oncologist (cancer specialist), and a nursing adviser. Our oncologist adviser said that Mr C's treatment had been reasonable and that the decision to place him on the LCP was appropriate. Our nursing adviser said Mr C had received a reasonable standard of nursing treatment. We found no evidence that Mr C was not treated appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that a nurse in a prison health centre did not deal with his referral form appropriately. Mr C asked to see the mental health team and he outlined his reasons for his request. A nurse discussed his referral with him and asked questions that Mr C felt were inappropriate.

We reviewed the board's response to Mr C's complaint in which they explained that the nurse was trying to find out what had led to the symptoms he described in his referral form. They also commented that the symptoms described would prompt most healthcare professionals to ask questions around the causes. The board also noted Mr C's view that the nurse had not read his referral and because of that, had questioned him unnecessarily. They assured him that was not the nurse's intention and offered an apology if that was his impression.

We took independent medical advice on this from our GP adviser, who told us that the nurse's actions in Mr C's case were reasonable and appropriate. In light of that, and having reviewed the board's response, we were satisfied that the nurse handled Mr C's referral appropriately, and we did not uphold his complaint.