Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Planning consent granted in 2002 required a developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in the area, and at first residents were given free parking permits. When, some ten years later, the council then started to charge residents for their permits, Mr C complained. He said that before the CPZ began to operate residents were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits as a result of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic resulting from the development. The council explained that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered a ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free as the costs associated with the CPZ were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from residents.

There was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely. However, we found no evidence of such a promise having been made. The available 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 the ten year period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ and was publicised at the time included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges if necessary 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.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their tendering process when undertaking a public works project. She said that work had been given to another person which should have been given to her company. She said the council wanted the project to be a voluntary/community-led project and she disagreed with that view and was then excluded by the council from the decision-making process.

We found that at a meeting with council staff and others, Ms C had agreed that an independent consultation should be undertaken to gauge support for the project and consider the most appropriate body to take it forward. We also found that the independent community consultation was done in accordance with the council's procurement guidelines. In light of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Over a period of two years Mrs C complained about the noise coming from a neighbouring property occupied by tenants of the association. She found the noise distressing and explained that it made her and her husband anxious and agitated. Although she had many contacts with the association, she said they did not resolve her complaints satisfactorily.

Our investigation examined all the association's communication with Mrs C, and the actions they took. We did not uphold her complaint, as although there was no corroborative evidence of noise, we found that the association tried to progress options with her to find solutions to the problems she was experiencing. We also found that they responded reasonably to her complaints.

Summary

Mr C said that the housing association had not given him accurate information about whether he was liable to pay the spare room supplement (commonly known as 'bedroom tax'). He complained that they had led him to believe he would be liable, and this had caused him considerable distress.

Our investigation found that the association relied on information from the council about an individual's liability to pay the supplement. They provided information to tenants about the proposals and wrote jointly with the council setting out the new rules for tenants under pensionable age. According to the association's records, Mr C had attended a meeting where he was told that, as he was a pensioner, he should not be affected by the supplement, though Mr C disputes this.

In coming to our decision we took several factors into consideration including that the council were the final arbiters on who was liable to pay, and the chief executive's view that it would not have been unreasonable to expect the housing officer to have contacted the council to clarify the matter on Mr C's behalf. However, we also considered that Mr C could have tried to clarify this with the council himself. As the evidence available to us pointed to Mr C having been informed at the meeting that he would not be affected by the spare room supplement we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board failed to diagnose her with rheumatoid arthritis while she was under their care. Although she had a number of appointments in just over a year, Although she had a number of appointments in just over a year, Mrs C was only diagnosed with this after she moved out of Scotland.. She said that this was despite the fact that there had been sufficient indicators present to have confirmed this. She said that, as a consequence, she was not properly treated and that she had subsequently lost her independence.

We investigated the complaint and took independent advice from a consultant rheumatologist. Our adviser said that diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis is neither straightforward nor easy and other conditions can mimic its presentation. Accordingly, great care has to be taken in making a diagnosis, and also in prescribing appropriate drugs, some of which have significant side-effects. We found that in the time period about which Mrs C was concerned, and faced with a complicated picture, clinicians responsible for her care had carefully monitored her, formed appropriate working diagnoses and treated her appropriately. At about the same time as Mrs C moved, the evidence about her condition became much clearer and the findings and updated treatment were summarised to her new clinician when her treatment recommenced.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A), about the care and treatment provided to Mrs A's son (Mr A). He was admitted to the Western General Hospital after feeling unwell for a few weeks. He was extremely tired, with bleeding gums and a sore throat, and had noticed lumps in his armpits, neck and groin. The next day, after bone marrow tests, Mr A was diagnosed with an acute form of leukaemia (cancer of the white blood cells). Treatment was immediately started and at first he appeared to be responding well but his temperature suddenly rose and tests revealed that he had a fungal blood infection. Despite treatment, including being transferred to the intensive care unit, Mr A's condition got worse and he died shortly afterwards.

Mrs A complained about the circumstances of her son's death saying that he had not been cared for or treated properly, and she questioned how his condition could have declined so rapidly. She was of the view that the doctors attending him did not have sufficient expertise or seniority and had not explored all possible options, including a bone marrow transplant, for him.

We took independent advice on this complaint from a consultant haematologist (a specialist concerned with the study of blood and blood-related disorders), after which we did not uphold Mrs A's complaints. Our investigation found that Mr A was treated on a protocol that was appropriate for his disease and which would have been used at any similar treatment centre in the UK. His treatment had to be intensive, and involved substantial doses of a drug that, while being an excellent killer of malignant cells, caused significant immunosuppression (reduced efficiency of the immune system). Our adviser said that, unfortunately, Mr A got the fungal infection at a time when his blood count was extremely low (because of disease and chemotherapy) and when his resistance to fighting infection was at its poorest.

Although Mrs A thought that a bone marrow transplant was not considered, our investigation confirmed that tissue typing, which is the first step in the process, had begun. However, this could not be fully implemented until such time as Mr A was in remission and had been cleared of all signs of the disease. We also confirmed that all the staff involved had been of appropriate seniority and expertise. Mr A's death was sudden and unexpected and although Mrs A complained that her family had not been kept fully informed of his condition or the risks of his treatment, we did not find this to be the case.

Summary

Mr C complained to the board that they had not treated him fairly when they were considering the discharge arrangements for his mother (Mrs A) from hospital. He believed that they had unprofessionally accused him of acting inappropriately towards other patients before the accusations had been investigated; that they had unreasonably reported to the police that he had been acting in an inappropriate manner; and that they had inappropriately instructed him to refrain from contacting other patients and visitors and restricted his contact with his mother.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers. We found that the staff had a duty of care towards their patients and that there were adult protection issues to consider. Their actions were appropriate in order to discharge their duties and obligations.

Summary

Mr C's wife (Mrs C) suffered from severe liver disease, and was admitted to, and discharged from, the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh three times in a three-month period. Shortly after her last discharge, Mrs C was admitted to the Western General Hospital, where she passed away about a week later. Mr C complained to us about a number of aspects of his late wife's nursing and medical care in the first hospital. He said that the multiple discharges showed that doctors were not really interested in getting to the bottom of what was going on, they just wanted to get Mrs C a little better and send her home. He also complained about medical care during the first few days of Mrs C's admission to the second hospital, when he said she was moved to a side room where he believed she was forgotten about.

After taking independent nursing and medical advice, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our nursing adviser considered that the overall nursing care in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh was reasonable, and found no evidence of the specific issues Mr C raised. Our medical adviser said that Mrs C's medical care was also reasonable, and explained that her experience of multiple admissions to hospital was typical for a person in her condition. The medical adviser also found evidence that Mrs C was regularly reviewed and received reasonable care during her first few days at the Western General Hospital. As during our investigation we noted that the board had not responded to Mr C's complaints properly, we drew this to their attention.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her daughter (Miss A) by the board's out-of-hours (OOH) service at St John's Hospital. Mrs C said that they failed to diagnose that Miss A had pneumonia (a lung infection) over the course of three visits. She told us that initially staff had failed to recognise that Miss A was seriously ill and she was sent home with misleading advice about how to care for Miss A. Mrs C also said that the doctor she saw on her final visit to the OOH service was dismissive of her concerns and her daughter had only been admitted to the children's ward because Mrs C had insisted that Miss A receive a second opinion.

Mrs C also complained that once on the children's ward, staffing levels were inadequate and this compromised the care provided to Miss A. Miss A's condition had continued to deteriorate and she was transferred to a children's hospital where she was treated as an in-patient for three weeks before she was discharged. Mrs C said Miss A had been traumatised by the experience and that she had required counselling to overcome her fear of hospitals and doctors.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers and a nursing adviser. The medical adviser said the medical records showed that the assessment Miss A received at each visit met national guidelines for the care of children with a fever. He said staff had recognised the severity of her condition and provided the appropriate treatment. There was no evidence to show that the doctor Mrs C complained about acted inappropriately. The nursing adviser said that the records for Miss A's stay in the children's ward were comprehensive, and provided a clear record of her care. We found no evidence that her care was substandard.

Summary

Mrs C took her young daughter (Miss A) to her medical practice as Miss A had a high temperature that would not come down, despite being given paracetamol. Mrs C said her daughter was shivering and was having difficulty catching her breath.

Mrs C said that at the appointment the GP described Miss A's condition as a chest infection and prescribed antibiotics. Miss A was later admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia (a lung infection). Mrs C said that the GP should have told her that he suspected pneumonia, rather than describing her daughter's condition as a chest infection. She thought that her daughter should have been referred for further tests and investigations at the appointment, rather than being sent home with a prescription for antibiotics. Mrs C also said that the practice had failed to handle her complaint appropriately. She said that, at a meeting, the GP seemed more upset about her complaint than about Miss A's experience, which had left her traumatised with a fear of hospitals and doctors.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. The adviser said that the evidence showed that the GP recorded a diagnosis of suspected pneumonia in his notes, and prescribed antibiotics for treatment at home, in line with national guidelines. He also said that there was no evidence that Miss A had not received an acceptable standard of care.

Our investigation also found that the practice carried out a thorough investigation into Mrs C's complaint. They provided an explanation for the remarks made by the GP at the meeting with Mrs C and where they identified learning points they took action to address them. We found that the practice had responded appropriately to Mrs C's complaint.