Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about how the council handled his concerns about nuisance and anti-social behaviour. He had complained about damage to common areas, noise nuisance and the keeping of chickens which he believed attracted vermin.

We found that the council followed their policy when Mr C reported neighbour nuisance and took reasonable steps to investigate and corroborate his complaints. They inspected the area where the chickens were kept and found it to be of a reasonable standard. They found no evidence of vermin and offered advice about signs of rodent activity to watch out for. They also offered to monitor noise by installing monitoring equipment, although Mr C declined this.

The council took reasonable steps to obtain witness evidence. We found that the evidence gathered did not substantiate Mr C's concerns and so the council had no grounds on which to act. Although they saw damage to a gate, there was no evidence to prove who was responsible for this. The council had advised Mr C's neighbour that the close was common to both properties and that they should respect this, and had offered mediation. We concluded that the council acted appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the council's decision to demolish a tenement building containing her three flats. She complained about the council's communication with her, and about the way they addressed the problems with the building.

After reviewing correspondence between Ms C and the council, we did not uphold either of her complaints. We found no evidence that the council's communication was inappropriate. We also found that the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 permits the council to carry out urgent work, such as demolition, to reduce or remove a danger. Although we understood that she felt that they should not have done so in this case, this was a discretionary decision for them to make. We cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions unless we find failings, which we did not find in this case.

Summary

After a tank in her loft burst, Ms C submitted a compensation claim to the council. They wrote to her with an offer of compensation, but said that she would not receive any money as it would be set against her council tax arrears. Ms C disputed the outstanding council tax, as she said that the council did not make her aware of it and she queried their right to offset the compensation against her council tax.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. The council provided clear evidence that council tax notices, reminders and warrant notices had been sent to Ms C each year, and there was evidence that they had phoned Ms C about her outstanding bill. Their procedure for compensation payments also said that they had the right to offset these against any outstanding debt, including council tax arrears. In addition the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 gave them the right to use information gathered under any other function in their council tax levying process.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. The planning consent required the developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). Mr C said that residents within the CPZ were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits because of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic from the development. However, ten years later the council introduced charges for these permits, and said that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered the ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free of charge as the costs were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from the residents.

Although there was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely, we found no evidence of this promise having been made. The evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after this period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ, and that was publicised at the time, included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment.

Mr C made additional complaints about the council's consultation with residents about a proposed extension to the CPZ and the fact that they allowed the development to be occupied before the CPZ was extended, contrary to a planning condition. We were satisfied that the council consulted with affected residents and noted that this led to a change in their position on the extension. Based on advice from our planning adviser, we were also satisfied that it was reasonable to allow the development to be occupied in the circumstances.

Summary

Miss C and her children lived in overcrowded conditions, as recognised by the association. She said she had been waiting for ten years for an offer of a suitable three-bedroom property, and that she had not been offered properties in areas where she could live. When she complained that she had not been offered any suitable properties, the association did not uphold her complaints.

In our investigation we reviewed Miss C's waiting list positions, the previous and current housing allocation policy, application records, and communication between the association and Miss C, as well as the offers of viewing made to her. We found that the association had reasonably investigated her complaints by reviewing their procedures, the records of discussions with her, documentation on offers made to view, amendments made by Miss C and her decisions not to view properties. It was clear from the documents we saw that the association had recognised Miss C as a priority and followed their allocation policy. There was also evidence that they made reasonable attempts to accommodate her preferences, discuss her housing issues and give advice about maximising her chances of an offer of a three-bedroom property. Although Miss C had not been offered a property that she was willing to consider, she was not treated unfairly.

Summary

Mr C accepted a tenancy with the association but, because he had concerns about the property, he ended the tenancy and returned the keys a few days later. He then made enquiries with the association about taking on a new tenancy, but found out that there were arrears outstanding from the first tenancy. Mr C did not believe that he should pay these given his concerns, and he complained. He was unhappy with the association's response to his complaint so he brought the matter to us.

The association said that Mr C was liable to pay rent for the notice period, in line with the information in the tenancy agreement. We reviewed the evidence available, which showed that they had explained to Mr C that he would still have to pay rent even though he ended his tenancy after a few days. We did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a shunt (a thin tube that drains fluid from the brain to another part of the body) in place in order to relieve his severe headaches. He complained to us that when he was having this replaced at Ninewells Hospital, he contracted an infection. Mr C was readmitted to the hospital several days after the operation, with a severe abdominal infection. It was thought that the infection came from the new shunt and this was subsequently removed. Mr C said that he had been unable to return to work after contracting the infection.

After obtaining independent medical advice from a consultant neurosurgeon, we found that it had been reasonable to carry out the operation. It was difficult to be sure about the origin and type of infection that Mr C experienced, but our adviser thought it likely that bacteria from the skin had transferred to the shunt during the surgery. There is always a risk of infection in these types of operations, and we found that this risk was included in the consent form Mr C signed before the operation. The surgical team had prepared Mr C's skin correctly before the operation and had given him an antibiotic to try to prevent infection, in line with the relevant guidelines.

As we found no evidence of any failings by the surgical team and there was nothing they could have done differently to prevent the infection, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff at Perth Royal Infirmary refused him permission to take his elderly mother (Mrs A) out of hospital on a specific occasion, and about the board's handling of his complaint.

We looked at the board's file on Mr C's complaint and at Mrs A's medical records, and took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. Where there are differing accounts of what was said or what took place during a particular event or incident, it can be difficult to prove what actually happened. Although this does not mean we believe one account over another, given the differing accounts of what happened on the day Mr C complained about, we were unable to resolve exactly what was said and so we based our findings on the written records. We found that the medical and nursing records were consistent and provided sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that it was reasonable in the circumstances for staff to advise against Mrs A leaving hospital that day, taking into account her state of health, their concerns and their responsibility to care for Mrs A.

The board's file on Mr C's complaint showed that they conducted a reasonable investigation by contacting relevant staff and referring to Mrs A's medical records. Their letter to Mr C accurately reflected Mrs A's medical records and, although it could have contained additional information that Mr C might have found helpful, it was reasonable in the circumstances. There was a delay in the board dealing with Mr C's complaint, but we found that they had accepted this, explained why, and apologised to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board failed to diagnose his condition properly when he attended an out-of-hours (OOH) service at Raigmore Hospital. Mr C was diagnosed with a viral infection, and he was discharged. A few days later, however, he became very unwell and was admitted to hospital where he was later diagnosed with legionnaires' disease.

Mr C said that the OOH service should have considered this as a possible diagnosis, particularly as he had mentioned recent travel abroad. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a GP. The adviser said that the examination of Mr C was thorough and well recorded. The adviser also reviewed the Health Protection Scotland (a government body that monitors infectious and environmental hazards) website, and noted that at the time of Mr C's admittance there were no notifications of increased incidents of legionella (the bacteria that causes legionnaires' disease) in the location Mr C had visited. Therefore, no alert would have been sent to GPs and OOH services to increase vigilance for the condition.

We, therefore, concluded that in light of the symptoms Mr C presented with at the time, he was provided with a reasonable diagnosis.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the board had refused to investigate his complaint about his late partner (Ms A)'s medical treatment at Dunoon Hospital. The board had refused to respond to the complaint as Mr C was not Ms A's next of kin, and to have access to her medical records they would have to have permission from her next of kin.

We found that the board had given Mr C's request for information about Ms A's clinical treatment careful consideration, and had consulted senior staff before reaching a final decision that they were not in a position to respond to the complaint. The board had also suggested that Mr C should contact Ms A's next of kin to ask for permission to release the information from Ms A's medical records, and that he had chosen not to do so. We were satisfied that the board had considered the matter carefully and we found no reason to question their actions.