Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) who was not satisfied with the care and treatment provided to his late wife (Mrs A) at the Beatson Oncology Centre. Mrs A was diagnosed with local and secondary breast cancer in 2003 and was treated first with chemotherapy (a treatment where medicine is used to kill cancerous cells) although this had little effect. She was then treated successfully with hormonal therapy. In 2006 a new tumour developed and an alternative hormonal treatment was prescribed. Scans in 2007 showed no progression in the secondary cancer but the tumour had increased slightly. The tumour continued to grow slowly and in 2009 Mrs A's hormonal treatment was changed again, the tumour was surgically removed and she was treated with radiotherapy (a treatment using high-energy radiation). Two years later, scans revealed that the cancer had spread to her liver and she started a course of chemotherapy. Mrs A continued to feel unwell and was eventually admitted to the centre suffering from confusion, breathlessness and swollen legs. Staff tried to find the cause of Mrs A's symptoms but she died about two months later.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from three of our advisers - a consultant oncologist (cancer specialist); a palliative care consultant (end of life care specialist); and a senior nurse. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A had been reasonable, appropriate and timely. When her cancer initially failed to respond to chemotherapy the treatment was changed, and this controlled the progression of the disease in the early stages. When a further tumour was found in 2006, appropriate treatment and follow-up was undertaken. Again, when the cancer was found to have spread, appropriate treatment was started to try to address this, although it was unsuccessful. Overall, the advisers were satisfied that the medical and nursing care provided to Mrs A were reasonable.

There were some problems with communication between staff and Mr A and his family, in particular towards the end of Mrs A's life when the family said that she had been put on an informal end of life care pathway similar to the Liverpool Care Pathway (a protocol used to guide staff caring for patients who are nearing the end of their life, by treating symptoms and trying to ensure patients remain comfortable and die with dignity). The advisers, however, found no evidence in the medical records that Mrs A was put on an end of life care pathway, and were satisfied that the care she received towards the end of her life was appropriate, and took account of her needs and symptoms.

Summary

Mrs C drove over a pothole and damaged her car. The matter was dealt with by the council's insurers. Mrs C complained to us because she said that she had been advised by the council that the pothole had been reported previously. She was unhappy that the council had failed to follow up this previous report in line with their obligations.

The council told us that they did not tell Mrs C that the pothole had been reported previously. They said that Mrs C's report about the pothole was the first report they received, that the pothole was categorised appropriately and that a repair was completed within the relevant timescale. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison psychiatrist left out relevant information when referring him to a specialist clinic. Mr C was concerned that the letter did not inform the clinic of details of his diagnosis and previous input he had from psychiatry and psychology. He was of the view that this could have delayed his treatment.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our mental health advisers, who reviewed the referral letter. He observed that the letter did specifically refer to Mr C's previous psychiatric treatment and, while it did not refer to a formal diagnosis, it mentioned the issues that Mr C was facing. He noted that there was no reference to previous input from psychology but could not say whether the psychiatrist would have been aware of this. In any event, he noted that the clinic would wish to carry out their own detailed assessment, exploring all relevant history, before starting any treatment. He, therefore, did not consider that the omission of some information would significantly impact on Mr C's future treatment. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) about the way the housing association dealt with her application for housing, including that other tenants had been allocated properties not in accordance with the allocations policy; and that the association did not assess Miss A's medical priority in line with their policy.

Miss A had young children, and lived in a property with stairs. After a pregnancy in 2010, she was advised not to lift anything heavy for three months and to take it easy for a year. She, therefore, found it difficult to carry the childrens' pushchair up and down the stairs. As a result of this, and other medical conditions from which she suffered, Miss A became isolated. In 2011 she applied for a larger, ground-floor property, which was considered under the association's housing allocation policy in force at the time. She was allocated to a queuing group for two- and three-bedroom properties for tenants regarded as living in overcrowded conditions. Ms C was concerned that another tenant, in a similar situation to Miss A, had said publicly that she had been rehoused, and also that other tenants had been rehoused ahead of Miss A in properties suitable for Miss A.

In mid-2012, Miss A also applied for medical priority points but that application was refused. Miss A was, however, advised that if the Department of Work and Pensions approved her application for disability living allowance (DLA) this could be reconsidered. In January 2013 she asked for a review of the decision on her medical priority and as she had been granted DLA in June 2012, the association granted Miss A medical priority points from then. Their housing allocation policy was then revised in April 2013. At the time of making the complaint to us, Miss A had still not been successful in being rehoused.

Our investigation found that Miss A's various applications, including the original application for medical priority, were correctly considered under both the old and current allocations policies. Miss A had correctly been put into a queuing group for tenants waiting for rehousing due to overcrowding. When she was granted medical priority points, her grouping was changed to that for a medical priority. We were unable to comment on the allocations of housing to other tenants but overall found no evidence that Miss A's applications were not dealt with appropriately under the relevant policies.

We were, however, critical of the fact that when at one point the association told Miss A about a housing decision, they gave her insufficient explanation of the reasons for that decision. The association also acknowledged during our investigation that the wording of their policy was not as clear as it could be in some areas and they intended to revise it. Therefore, although we did not uphold the complaint and did not make any recommendations, we asked them to bring the requirement to provide clear explanations for decisions to tenants to the attention of staff making decisions on allocations. We also asked them to let us know when the allocations policy has been revised.

Summary

Mr C complained that Children's Hearings Scotland (CHS) had unreasonably failed to investigate his complaints about two children's panel hearings. CHS told Mr C that they were unable to investigate the complaint about the earlier hearing because they were not the body responsible for panel members at the time of that hearing. In relation to the second complaint, CHS said that they cannot normally consider complaints made more than six months after the person has become aware of the matter they wish to complain about. They told Mr C that his complaint about the later panel hearing fell outwith that period, but asked if he had any special circumstances that meant they should waive this restriction. Mr C explained that he had a disability. CHS considered this but decided that this did not, in itself, constitute special circumstances that would justify the waiving of the restriction. They invited Mr C to provide more information if he believed there were circumstances they had not considered. Mr C then complained to us.

We found that the terms of the relevant legislation meant that CHS' decision on the complaint about the earlier panel hearing was correct and that the steps they took in considering whether there were special circumstances in relation to the complaint about the later panel hearing were reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council installed an unsuitable extractor fan in his house. He was concerned that it was designed to be left on 24 hours a day and that he was responsible for the running costs. When he switched the fan off, he found that there was a draught from the duct, and was unhappy that the fan did not have filters, which he believed should have been fitted when it was installed.

We found that the fan was installed as part of a refurbishment programme for multi-storey buildings involving comprehensive recladding and insulation. Due to the techniques used to provide sealed 'air-tightness' and controlled ventilation, fans were installed to allow the building to breathe. The manufacturer's technical guidance showed that a filter was not required, given the way the fan was to be used, and that if it was used continuously as designed there would be no problem with draughts. Estimated running costs were extremely low and the council said Mr C would recover these through energy savings because of the insulation and other works carried out. We found this reasonable and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that prison staff opened an item of post from his solicitor, which they should have passed to him unopened.

Post in prison must be strictly handled, so that prisoners do not receive inappropriate items. Incoming mail is, therefore, opened by prison officers. However, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) recognise that some post should be regarded as confidential and passed to prisoners unopened, including correspondence from legal advisers such as solicitors. The SPS have arrangements in place to identify such post, which should then not be opened by prison staff.

In this case, the solicitor had not followed the agreed process to enable the SPS staff to identify their correspondence with Mr C, but had simply marked it as 'private and confidential'. The correspondence was, therefore, opened because this was not enough to qualify it to be passed on unopened. We considered that the SPS had acted appropriately. We also noted that, to resolve the matter, when Mr C complained to the SPS they said they would contact the solicitor to remind them of the process. Our investigation confirmed that the SPS had done that.

Summary

Mr C complained about planning permission granted for an area of ground behind his house. He said that in determining the permission, the council relied on incorrect information and allowed a building to be erected that overlooked his house. He said that the council had dealt inconsistently with this application, and a site visit should have been made so that officers would have better understood the implications of the development on his home. He said that his complaints to the council about these matters had not been handled properly.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that while certain incorrect information had been reported in a council document, the responsibility for ensuring its accuracy lay with the developer and not with the council. Despite this, we found that the planning application was determined on its merits and, while a site visit was not mandatory, it was likely that one had been made. There was no evidence to suggest that the council had dealt inconsistently with this matter in comparison to its normal decision-making process and, indeed, it seemed that the council had gone further than necessary in considering the water management implications of the application. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's complaint in accordance with their complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that his medication was stopped after a spot check of his cell revealed a discrepancy in the medication he should have had in his possession. The check showed that capsules had been emptied and, as a result, the prison health centre stopped the medication. Mr C complained, saying that his cellmate had told a prison officer that it was he, the cellmate, who had taken the contents of the capsules. Mr C could not see why he was being punished for something that someone else had done without his knowledge.

We took independent advice on this case from two of our medical advisers, one of whom is a GP and the other is a nurse. Our investigation confirmed that the cellmate had told a prison officer that he had taken the medication. However, the medication in question, gabapentin, is one that is prone to misuse in prisons. Drug security in prison is particularly important, and as someone - regardless of who - had tampered with the medication, the NHS policy is to stop supplying the medication. Mr C had signed a medication contract in the prison, confirming that he was aware that medication would be stopped if there was any discrepancy and that it was his responsibility to keep any of his medications safely.

We, therefore, considered the health centre had acted appropriately in stopping the medication when the discrepancy was discovered and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to deal reasonably with her planning application for a new driveway and her application for dropped kerb access. The council said that they had explained to Ms C what her rights were in respect of parking, and had clearly told her what she needed to do to obtain these permissions. They said that they worked with her at all stages to try and assist her through this process.

We found that the council had had a great deal of contact with Ms C and had provided her with clear advice on what she would have to do to get consent. As we found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold the complaint.