Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably demanded payment for works carried out under a statutory notice, without providing an invoice with a detailed breakdown of the costs. He was dissatisfied with the information they provided, and said that they were legally required to provide a detailed invoice, which they had failed to do.

Our investigation found that the council had followed their usual practice when issuing the invoice. Although Mr C considered that they had not met the requirements on the detail that should be provided, they had clearly responded when he requested more information. As we found nothing wrong in their handling of the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments to their service in order to meet his needs. He went to their office to apply for housing benefit, but was unable to use the customer computers to complete an online application due to his disabilities. He, therefore, requested a paper application but due to the nature of his disabilities he needed this on coloured paper and the council only kept stocks of white paper. In complaining about this, Mr C also raised concerns that the council's postal correspondence was sent to him on white paper.

The council noted that they had various options in place to allow customers to access their service. They explained that appointments can be arranged with staff, who can assist with the completion of online applications. Alternatively, customers can apply over the phone or can apply online by visiting their website. We noted Mr C had been able to submit a phone application on the same day he visited the council office. The council also explained that customers can access their benefit accounts online and all correspondence can be viewed. They said that, by offering these alternatives, they were complying with their duties under equality legislation.

As Mr C was able to submit an application over the phone, we were satisfied that there was an accessible option for him and he was not prevented from claiming benefit. We were also satisfied that a reasonable alternative existed for him to view general correspondence, by accessing his online account, and we were not aware of any barriers preventing him from doing so. Although it was not for us to reach a view on the legal position, we were assured that the council had carefully considered whether their service was equipped to meet Mr C's needs, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved out of a council property. Before moving out he was asked to replace a kitchen and bedroom door and to fill in part of another door where a lock had been fitted. Mr C told us that he carried out these repairs and that a council representative passed them as acceptable. Two months after moving out, Mr C received a bill for the doors as the council said that they had had to replace them, and he complained to us about this.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In response to our investigation the council supplied photographs of the doors that they had replaced, showing clear damage to them. They also supplied their policies which showed that the tenant had to make necessary repairs before vacating the property and allowed the council to recharge the tenant for the costs of replacing any fittings or making repairs. We found no evidence proving that a council representative passed the repairs as acceptable.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was charged late payment fees for failing to renew his landlord registration in time. He said that he had been unable to access his account to renew online and had made efforts to pay in person at the council's offices. However, the council were unable to accept payment as he had not completed the application form. Mr C eventually completed a paper application but by then his registration had already expired and late payment fees automatically applied.

We found that the council sent Mr C three reminders before his registration expired, which they were required to do under their landlord registration procedure. These explained how he could renew online and provided a phone number for him to contact should he need a paper application. However, Mr C did not contact this number until after his registration expired. While he had made efforts to pay the associated fee, an application was required so that appropriate declarations could be made before an invoice could be generated and payment accepted.

Mr C also complained that he was misinformed by staff when he attended the council's offices to try to pay, but we could find no evidence to support this. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow proper planning procedures in allowing a developer to alter their masterplan (a plan that describes and maps an overall development concept, including present and future land use) after public consultation had been carried out. Mr C said that this had resulted in his land being included in the masterplan without his involvement. Mr C said that the council had approved the altered masterplan, which had placed him at risk of significant financial loss. He noted that a subsequent planning application he had made had been rejected, on the grounds that his land was not approved for residential development under the masterplan.

The council said that their role was not to inform landowners of the provisions of the masterplan and that the onus was on the developer to show they had engaged with stakeholders. In this instance, the developer had provided evidence that they had contacted Mr C, but he had not responded. The council believed it was appropriate for them to have considered and approved the amended masterplan at the relevant committee meeting, which took place after the public consultation stage.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the masterplan process placed no obligations on the council to notify stakeholders who might be affected. He also said that the expectation under the masterplan process was that landowners who believed their interests might be affected would engage with the developer. He noted that the masterplan did not give the developer planning permission to carry out work, which required a separate, formal planning application. He said in his view the council had acted reasonably. In light of this, we found no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in their handling of the masterplan process.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were having ongoing problems with their central heating and boiler, and that they incurred extra costs in their heating bills as a result of the problems not being fixed. They said that although a significant number of call-outs were made and different faults were addressed, the system was still not working properly.

During our investigation the association provided details of the repair history for the property. While it was clear that Mr and Mrs C had made a number of calls to the association about the heating system, we found that the association had responded to reports of faults and that remedial action had generally been carried out in good time. The association had explained that the heating system had been checked on a number of occasions and was found to be working properly. There had been a delay in work being carried out to reposition the thermostat but this would not have prevented the heating system operating properly. There had also been a delay in a leaking radiator being fixed. The association had apologised for these delays. Based on the available evidence, we found that Mr and Mrs C had only once been left without heating for more than a few hours, when they were provided with temporary heaters. The association had also obtained a second opinion about the heating system and had requested an investigation into any cause for higher than normal heating bills.

Summary

Mr C, who is a resident of the association, lived in a bedsit but wanted to move to a one bedroomed flat. He was originally allocated overcrowding points in respect of his application, but in April 2013, the association changed their housing policy. This meant that from then on a single person living in a bedsit was considered to be adequately housed and did not have priority. Mr C complained that they did not tell him in advance that the policy was being changed and that, in their response to his complaint, the association failed to specify what part of the housing legislation they were referring to. Further, Mr C complained that the association failed to provide feedback when his expressions of interest about available accommodation were not successful.

We found from our investigation that, although the changes to their policy had affected how Mr C's housing need was viewed, the association provided satisfactory evidence that they took action to notify all of their tenants in advance of the proposed changes, and gave them an opportunity to consider and give feedback on the policy whilst it was in draft. We found it reasonable that the association did not provide more specific information about legislation when they responded to Mr C's complaint, but we noted that it would have been helpful if they had referred him to the relevant section about priority on the housing list and allocation of housing. We found that there was a period just after the change in policy when there was a problem with a lack of feedback to tenants. However, this had been resolved, and we saw no evidence that the feedback which was given by the association was incorrect.

Summary

Ms C complained that after being referred to a podiatry clinic, she was told that there was nothing wrong with her feet. She was dissatisfied with the care and treatment she received and said that she had to have private medical treatment to provide some relief for her problems. She complained to the board about her experiences and was unhappy when they took the view that she had been treated in line with her medical needs.

We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in podiatry. Our investigation showed that Ms C was seen at the podiatry clinic twice and that both times she was appropriately examined and diagnosed. She was given treatment in line with her diagnosis, so we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Ms C attended the A&E department at St John's Hospital with a skin problem behind her ear. She thought it had been caused by a reaction to hair dye. She complained that the triage nurse (who decides which patients should be treated first based on how sick or seriously injured they are) wrongly categorised her condition as minor, which meant she would have to wait a long time to see a doctor. She also complained that the nurse gave the impression she was wasting the nurse's time and, when Ms C decided to leave before seeing a doctor, she said the nurse asked her to sign a form, which Ms C did not realise until later was a form to declare that she was discharging herself from the hospital.

We were unable to establish the facts about what the nurse said, or how she said it. However, we concluded that the nurse had acted within triage guidelines in categorising Ms C's condition as minor, which meant she was likely to have to wait some time, while patients with higher priority categories were seen by a doctor. We also concluded that the self-discharge form was easy to read and understand and that Ms C could reasonably have been expected to know that she was signing it to indicate that she was leaving the hospital against advice. If she had not understood the form, she could have asked what it was before signing. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her late mother (Mrs A) about the care and treatment Mrs A received at Monklands Hospital. She had fractured her neck and was admitted to hospital for conservative management (medical treatment avoiding radical therapeutic measures or operations).

Mrs A had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a type of lung disease) and was treated for a chest infection whilst in hospital. She was also found to have fractured ribs. Mrs A's chest condition deteriorated and an x-ray revealed a haemothorax (blood in the cavity surrounding the lung). A chest drain was inserted to drain the fluid, and she was transferred to the High Dependency Unit for several days then transferred back to the ward when her condition stabilised. However, a few days later she suffered a rapid deterioration and died.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers who found that the decision to transfer Mrs A back to the ward was reasonable given that her breathing rate, oxygen levels, blood pressure, and heart rate were all stable and met the board's transfer criteria in this respect. We also took independent advice from our nursing adviser, and noted that the board had acknowledged that there was delay in a drip being reconnected due to the cannula (intravenous tube) becoming dislodged and that a dose of antibiotics was missed. They provided refresher training for the ward staff, and a member of the nursing staff had apologised to the family. We found this reasonable and our nursing adviser considered that this was not a significant failing that affected the overall outcome for Mrs A.

Although we noted that the board had arranged for staff to have refresher training in relation to chest drains, neither of our advisers identified any evidence of failings with the management of the chest drain. In relation to Mrs C's concerns about staffing on the ward, we found that some of the shifts had lower numbers than planned, but that bank staff and overtime were used to address this, which was reasonable. On balance, we concluded that the medical and nursing care was reasonable.