Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his medical practice had failed to appropriately assess and diagnose the cause of pain and swelling in his leg. Mr C saw three GPs at the practice and was diagnosed with a Baker's cyst (a fluid-filled swelling that develops at the back of the knee and is caused by a problem with the knee joint or the tissue behind it). However, he subsequently had a pulmonary embolism (a blockage, usually a blood clot, in the pulmonary artery, which is the blood vessel that carries blood from the heart to the lungs). Mr C considered that the pain in his leg had in fact been a blood clot that had travelled up his veins and caused the pulmonary embolism.

We took independent advice on Mr C's complaint from one of our medical advisers. We found that the GPs who saw Mr C had carried out the correct investigations and had provided him with a reasonable standard of care in relation to the pain and swelling in his leg. Based on the investigations, it had been reasonable to assume that the swelling was a Baker's cyst. The GPs had also considered alternative diagnoses. We found that the pulmonary embolism could not have been foreseen and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the results of a specialised blood test he had to try to detect pieces of blood clot in his bloodstream were inaccurate. The blood test had been negative. However, there was no clear evidence that Mr C had a blood clot at that time. We found that there was no evidence that the test results were inaccurate and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C had tests and investigations at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary over three years to try to identify the cause of his abdominal pain. He complained that these were not carried out in an appropriate manner, which meant he had unnecessary procedures and treatment. Mr C felt that there was a delay in him having an endoscopy (a procedure using a camera to look at the stomach) and that he should have been tested sooner for helicobacter pylori (bacteria that can cause inflammation in the lining of the stomach). He was also concerned that he was given unnecessary medication.

We obtained advice from a gastroenterologist (a specialist in the treatment of conditions affecting the liver, intestine and pancreas) and a surgeon in relation to the tests and surgical procedures. Both advisers said that these were reasonable given Mr C's ongoing symptoms and the results of the various tests. There was no indication that any of the tests should have been done sooner. It was also reasonable that Mr C was prescribed medication to see if it helped his symptoms, as there was an indication of an abnormality with his pancreatic duct (which connects the pancreas - a gland behind the stomach - with the intestine).

We concluded that Mr C received extensive assessments, investigations and treatment for his abdominal pain, and that the gastroenterology and surgical care he received was reasonable and appropriate.

Summary

Ms C complained that staff at the prison health centre had taken away her TENS machine (a form of pain relief that delivers small electrical pulses to the body via electrodes placed on the skin) that she had been using to manage pain. She also complained that she had not been told why the machine was removed.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who specialises in mental health nursing. We found that staff had removed the machine and offered alternative pain relief to Ms C. Our adviser said that staff had acted correctly in removing the machine as they had concerns for Ms C's safety. We were also satisfied that the board had explained the reason for the removal to her, and we did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he did not get adequate care and treatment at his prison's health centre for nerve pain resulting from a finger injury. He also questioned the adequacy of his medical records, as the board's response to his complaint included an incorrect date for his injury.

We looked at Mr C's medical records, and took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found it was appropriate for prison health centre staff to try different treatments, with a view to finding one that would provide Mr C with good pain relief. We also found that, while there was one minor error in a date in Mr C's medical records, this did not impact on the care and treatment provided to him, and the correct date was included elsewhere in the records.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were not satisfied with the board's investigation of their complaint about the behaviour of staff at clinic appointments at Ayr Hospital. The board told them that the relevant staff had been interviewed, and their recollection of events was different from that of Mr and Mrs C. Staff had said that it was Mr and Mrs C who exhibited unacceptable behaviour. Mr and Mrs C then complained to us that the board did not respond appropriately to their complaint.

It appeared that Mr and Mrs C and the staff had interpreted events differently, and we could not say which version of events was more accurate. We did find evidence that the board had treated the matter seriously and had thoroughly investigated the complaint. We were satisfied that they took Mr and Mrs C's concerns into account along with the evidence from the staff involved and had provided a reasonable response, including explaining the main issues involved.

Summary

Miss C complained that the university had not adequately handled her complaint of harassment by university staff. The university had dealt with this under their complaints procedure rather than under their personal harassment policy and she disputed the evidence they produced in handling it. She said that they produced documents written by staff that were not true, and had refused to meet with her to discuss this and her other concerns. The university later said that she had made false allegations about staff and the university.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that although the university dealt with the complaint about harassment under the student complaints procedure rather than the personal harassment policy, the investigation fulfilled the requirements of the policy. The matter was investigated as part of a three-fold complaint, with the intention of investigating the complaints thoroughly and reaching a conclusion that would allow Miss C to continue her studies, which was achieved. We took the view that, therefore, although not strictly in line with the policy, the investigation was in keeping with its spirit.

On the complaint about failure to respond to her concerns and requests for clarification, which also related to some academic decisions, we explained to Miss C that we could only look at how the university responded to her concerns, not at the academic decisions themselves. Our investigation found that the university responded on numerous occasions, but that Miss C found it difficult to accept those responses as she did not agree with them. Our view was that they had responded in a reasonable way to her concerns and had addressed all the issues she had raised, regardless of whether Miss C agreed with what they said.

Finally, in relation to Miss C's complaint that the university unreasonably accused her of making false allegations about members of staff and of harassing the university, we confirmed that the university had said this. Our investigation was not, however, intended to determine whether the allegations were true or false, but whether the university's actions in responding to them were reasonable. Our view was that they were.

Summary

When the local planning authority refused Mr C's application for planning consent, he appealed the decision. He complained to us that in handling his appeal, the inquiry reporter (the person responsible for hearing the appeal) failed to confine his reporting to matters relevant to the status of the application (which was for planning consent in principle). Mr C also complained that the reporter used subjective opinions to make his decision.

Our investigation found no evidence from the appeal, or the responses the department gave Mr C when he complained, that the reporter had failed to take relevant matters such as the legislation and development plan policy into consideration. Nor did we find evidence that the reporter was in any doubt that this was an appeal for planning consent in principle, not detailed consent. Finally, we found no evidence that the reporter used his own criteria. We found that the comments Mr C considered subjective were where the reporter expressed an opinion, which he was entitled to do as long as he was taking account of the relevant policy, legislation and guidance. This was a professional decision that the reporter had discretion to take and there was no evidence of fault in how he arrived at that decision.

Summary

Mr C complained that, when he bought a property to let, the council had unreasonably decided that he did not qualify for exemption of council tax for an empty dwelling. He said he had carried out substantial work, including replacing the kitchen and bathroom, rewiring and redecoration, which should have made the property eligible for the exemption for the duration of the upgrading work. The council investigated his complaints and found that, because the previous owner had received a discount for a second home on the property, the property did not qualify for exemption as an empty dwelling as it had not been continuously occupied for three months before he bought it.

Our investigation considered his correspondence with the council, relevant legislation and amendments relating to council tax and empty dwellings, and the council's responses. We found that the council had taken appropriate actions in line with legislation and that their responses to his complaints explained the legislation and the changes relating to their decisions.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board failed to diagnose a large volume of fluid on her lungs when she was treated in hospital in Scotland. She said that when she was treated later in another country a large amount of fluid was drained from her lungs.

We obtained independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser explained that the records showed that the board did diagnose fluid on the lungs but that it was a small amount. Having looked at Ms C's chest

x-rays our adviser said that this was the correct description and there was no evidence of the litres of bloody fluid that Ms C told us she had drained later. The adviser said the difference might have been due to progression of her condition over a period of time, which is not uncommon. Based on the advice received, we were satisfied that the board's care and treatment of Ms C was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C had carried out some work in an area of amenity ground immediately behind his house. The council took the view that this gave the ground the appearance of a garden and an extension of his own land. They said that this was contrary to the terms of the planning consent for the housing development where he lived. He was required to return the land to its previous condition. Mr C complained to us and said that other residents had done similar works to the land behind their gardens but that action had not been taken against them. He believed that the council were not applying planning rules fairly.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation showed that the ground concerned was amenity space to which members of the public required access. Mr C had done some works there which, after they were brought to their attention, the council inspected. They said that the work gave the impression of a private garden and so discouraged members of the public from accessing it, and that although other residents had placed picnic tables in the area, these did not affect public enjoyment or access. This was the professional opinion of council officers and as such the council were entitled to be guided by it. There was no evidence that Mr C was not treated fairly because the circumstances relating to the ground in this particular case were different.