Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C’s daughter (Miss A) broke her leg and was admitted to Forth Valley Royal Hospital. Her leg was put in plaster and managed conservatively (without surgery). In the three months after her accident, Miss A was provided with a number of plaster casts but continued to experience pain and discomfort.

Miss A went abroad and, while she was there, had to seek medical attention as she continued to suffer pain in her leg. After seeing an orthopaedic surgeon there, she was admitted to hospital for surgery. Ms C said that doctors there told her that, without this, there would have been long term complications. She complained that her daughter did not receive appropriate treatment for her broken leg from Forth Valley Royal Hospital and had not given informed consent for the conservative treatment she received there.

We obtained independent medical advice from an experienced consultant in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. We found that there would be variations in approach about the treatment of this type of injury, and differing views between countries, between different hospitals in the same country and between individual surgeons in the same orthopaedic unit. Our adviser said that both conservative management and surgery are well supported managements for this type of injury and both are considered to be appropriate treatment. Once the decision was made to manage Miss A’s injury in plaster, the care and treatment she received was correct and plaster casts were left on for the appropriate length of time before they were removed. We also found that Miss A was able to give informed consent for her treatment.

On one occasion, there was a failure to carry out an x-ray after Miss A’s plaster was changed. The board had acknowledged this and had already apologised. Our adviser considered that they had taken appropriate action and did not identify any other failings in Miss A’s treatment. The adviser also said that Miss A’s medical records did not support the criticism of her treatment that the doctors abroad appeared to have made.

Summary

Mr C complained that the care and treatment of his wife (Mrs C) had been unreasonable, in particular in relation to managing Mrs C's stiffness and contractures (rigidity in a joint that cannot be overcome, leaving the limb in a fixed position). Mrs C, who suffered from dementia, was initially cared for at home under the care of a speciality doctor in old age psychiatry and her GP. However, when there was a marked deterioration in her mobility and rigidity in her limbs, she was admitted to Victoria Hospital. A month later, she was transferred to Queen Margaret Hospital. During this time, as Mrs C was becoming increasingly agitated and upset, she was prescribed increasing doses of an antipsychotic drug (a medicine used to treat mental health conditions). Mr C complained that this resulted in his wife's physical condition deteriorating and her body becoming more rigid.

We took independent medical advice from two of our advisers - consultants in old age psychiatry and in geriatrics - and we found that while it was known that the drug prescribed to Mrs C might have side effects causing muscle contractures, in Mrs C's case it was initially prescribed to her in a low dose to reduce her agitation. This had been fully discussed with Mr C. We also found that the clinical staff involved considered the benefits of using the drug against the possible side effects, and concluded that the benefits outweighed the possibility of any side effects. It was also known that many patients with end-stage dementia went on to develop contractures. While Mrs C was given increasing doses of the drug, the matter had always been discussed with Mr C and clinicians followed good practice by continually monitoring Mrs C. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's father (Mr A) had suffered from a painful degenerative condition that caused his spinal cord to become compressed. An operation was carried out and, after a difficult recovery, Mr A was pain free for a number of months. He then began to have new pain in his shoulder and went to his GP as he was worried that this could have been a recurrence of the condition. Mr A's GP considered that he did not have any new symptoms that indicated his spinal cord was compressed. Mr A had a number of consultations over the following months where the GP adjusted his pain relief medication. He also attended hospital appointments which clinicians reported to the GP; none of them considered that he was suffering from spinal cord compression. Mr A was subsequently seen at home by the GP as he was in too much pain to visit the surgery. The GP made a referral for a scan which was carried out a few days later. The scan showed a narrowing of the spinal canal and an urgent referral was made.

Mrs C complained that the GP repeatedly failed to diagnose her father's condition, delayed referring him for a scan and had not assisted him in obtaining medical equipment to help him manage at home. The practice responded saying that the GP had acted appropriately.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that the GP had provided Mr A with reasonable care and treatment. Our adviser explained that there was no evidence that Mr A was suffering from new spinal cord compression and so there was nothing to suggest that a scan should have been carried out earlier. In relation to obtaining medical equipment for use at home, our adviser said that the occupational therapy department would deal with this rather than the GP. As the GP had advised Mrs C's family to contact the occupational therapy department, we considered that this had been handled reasonably.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the university handled his appeal against the downgrading of his degree award from Master of Business Administration to Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration. Mr C failed two exams at his fourth attempt, and appealed to the university asking them to take into consideration a number of factors that he said affected his performance in these exams. He also said that he had been misinformed about his marks in relation to previous exams, which meant that he did not have enough time to study for his re-sits. He also said that the university had delayed in responding when he asked to defer one of his exams to increase his chances of passing them both.

We reviewed the university's application of its two-stage appeal procedure. The first stage was handled by a faculty appeal committee and we found that this committee had considered all the issues Mr C raised, in line with their policy. We noted that they had not considered the full grounds on which he made his appeal, but as he had not provided any evidence in relation to these, we considered this to be reasonable.

The second stage of the appeal procedure was made to the university senate, with an initial review by the vice-principal to consider whether there were grounds for appeal to the senate. The vice-principal considered that there were no new grounds for appeal, because Mr C had not provided any evidence of bias or prejudice at the faculty appeal stage, and there was no evidence of a breach of the appeals procedure. We found that this judgement was made in line with the appeals procedure and, overall we considered that the university had given Mr C's appeal reasonable consideration.

Summary

Ms C was a student at the university. She has learning difficulties, and whilst attending at the university there were a number of adjustments in place to support her in her studies. She said that during her third year her performance in a number of subjects was affected by health problems. She submitted a special circumstances claim asking the university to take these into account when determining her marks for the year. Ms C complained that the university failed to properly apply their policy and procedures when considering this claim and her subsequent academic appeal.

Whilst we found that the university could have recorded more detailed information about their consideration of Ms C's case, we were generally satisfied that they reached their decision having taken all the relevant information into account. We found that Ms C's special circumstances were not dismissed, but that the university took the view that Ms C failed to demonstrate that they had had a significant impact on her academic performance.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about a statutory notice that was served on his property. He was unhappy with the explanations given, the documents received and the charges applied. The council said that they had given reasonable explanations, had provided the necessary documents and charged Mr C appropriately. Mr C disagreed, saying that he should have had this information earlier.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether he was appropriately billed as that was a matter for the council - we would only look at how they explained their decisions. Our investigation considered how and when the explanations were given. We found that the council had explained the reasoning for the statutory notice early in the process, provided the documentation requested, apologised for a delay in complaints handling, and added levies and charges in line with council policy. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council took enforcement action against him in respect of two property developments. He said that they acted outwith their powers, and were vindictive and biased in their treatment of his developments and complaints.

The council said that, as Mr C had not complied with the planning permissions granted for the two properties, they had taken reasonable actions in enforcing those permissions.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. The adviser said that the council, having identified that the properties did not conform to the planning permissions granted, had all the relevant powers to take enforcement action. We also found there was no evidence that the council had been vindictive or biased towards Mr C in considering planning permissions about his properties or the handling of his complaint. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council did not give her accurate information about the availability of parking season tickets. Miss C said that she had been asking them for several years how she could obtain a permit to park near her retail premises. She said that the council had advised her that they did not issue business parking permits, only residential ones. Miss C was then told some years later that she could purchase a season ticket for the all-day parking areas. She said that this would have saved her money and wanted the council to reimburse her for the money she could have saved if she had a season ticket.

We found that there was no evidence of the wording of Miss C's request for information and that the council, in saying that they did not supply business parking permits, had provided accurate information. We also found that the council's guide to parking provides details about the availability of season tickets and is available to the public.

Miss C also complained that a neighbouring retailer had been issued with a free parking permit and wanted the council to explain this and issue her with the same permit. We found that the permit held by the neighbouring retailer was not relevant to Miss C's circumstances, and the council's position that they could not discuss another individual's details with Miss C was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C wanted to buy an area of land behind his property to create a new driveway. The council, however, refused to sell it to him because they believed that any access would impact the status of the green space area concerned. Mr C then complained that land in the same green space had been sold to another residential neighbour and to a utilities company.

We made enquiries with the council and found that their decision to refuse to sell the land was one that they were entitled to make. We also found that they had considered and responded to each of Mr C's concerns. His disagreement with the council's decision was not in itself evidence of maladministration, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council did not do enough to sort out dampness in her former home, where she was their tenant. She said that it caused mould and that items of personal property were ruined because of this. She told us that she repeatedly reported dampness, but the situation did not improve and she eventually gave up her tenancy because of the problems.

Our investigation found that the council had carried out work on the property when she first raised her concerns. They then arranged a survey, which showed a problem with condensation rather than dampness. As a result of this, they carried out more work. Although there was a delay in some of this being completed satisfactorily, the council had apologised and had taken action to complete it. Ms C disagreed that the problems related to condensation and had continuing concerns. The council carried out a further inspection and ordered other work to be done. However, Ms C left the property before this could happen. We did not uphold her complaint as, although she disagreed about the cause of the problem, we found that the council acted reasonably in trying to identify and address it.