Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C arranged to have work done to his driveway, which also affected the pavement outside his property. He had contacted the council in September 2011, who wrote back with an informal opinion that the work would be classed as permitted development (meaning that planning permission would not be necessary). However, they went on to explain that if Mr C wanted formal confirmation that it was permitted development, he would have to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. They also explained that he would have to apply for this in any event if the work required a separate type of permit because it affected the public road, which it did. Around two years later, Mr C wanted to go ahead with the work and was unhappy when he learned that a certificate of lawfulness would be required, as he felt that the council’s letter meant this was not the case. He was also unhappy at the level of detail the council wanted him to send them and complained that they had not properly investigated his complaint about the way a council employee spoke to his wife.

After taking independent advice from our planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser explained that the council's requirement for a certificate of lawfulness was common practice in most local authorities. He did not consider the council had acted unreasonably, and indicated that the level of detail the council requested was in keeping with what they reasonably required under planning legislation. Although we considered their letter of September 2011 could have perhaps explained the position more clearly, the evidence indicated that there had been no maladministration.

In terms of the council’s investigation into their employee’s conduct at Mr C’s property, we considered that they could have done little more to investigate this, beyond interviewing Mr C's wife (and possibly the contractor who was on site). We recognised that this had been a long-running stressful matter for Mr C and his wife, but we considered the council’s approach reasonable in the absence of evidence that would have highlighted inaccuracies in their employee's version of events.

Summary

Mr C and his family own a number of rented properties. He said that he applied online to renew the registration of the properties rented and jointly owned. Some family members’ applications were approved, and confirmatory emails were received. However, Mr C did not notice that confirmation had not been given for his and another family member’s application, and that payment had not been taken. He thought that this might have been due to the applications being incomplete, and that the council should have noticed this. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to send reminders after the renewal date lapsed, and had charged him a late payment fee.

Landlord Registration is a mandatory registration scheme for all private landlords in Scotland and all local authorities have a statutory duty to deliver this within their areas. The scheme allows councils to establish their own processes to administer the scheme locally, taking into account the primary legislation and associated regulations.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence that the council had received an application from Mr C and had failed to act on it. Although the council did not contact him for some time after the deadline for registration lapsed, the onus to register rested with the applicant, and the late payment fee he was asked to pay was in line with the registration scheme.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the council decided not to investigate his antisocial behaviour complaint beyond making initial enquiries. They said they did this because, under the Antisocial Behaviour Etc (Scotland) Act 2004, for such behaviour to exist it must involve this type of conduct on at least two occasions. In this case, the council thought that the incidents were so closely related that they comprised a single occasion. Mr C disagreed, saying that the instances of antisocial behaviour were separate and amounted to extreme antisocial behaviour.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether antisocial behaviour took place as that was a matter for the council – we would only look at how they implemented their antisocial behaviour procedure. Our investigation considered how the complaints were recorded, how the decision on them was taken, and how it was communicated to Mr C. We found that the complaints were recorded on the appropriate database, that the council’s decision took account of the relevant internal procedure and the Act, and that this was communicated to Mr C. This meant that the council had done as they should have and had implemented their procedure reasonably, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that his child had been allocated to a composite class, where he felt the child's wellbeing was not being met. He said the school had not followed the guidelines for composite classes, and had not properly considered his concerns about bullying and his child’s welfare. Our investigation considered the council's policy on composite classes and reviewed the evidence from meetings with the school and the council's responses. We found that the council had delegated authority on the composition of classes to the head teacher, who had operated within the guidelines laid down by the council. We also found that the school had listened to Mr C's concerns about his child’s welfare, and had told Mr C what they would do to address them. Mr C had not, however, raised his concern about bullying directly with the school, and so they had not had a chance to address this. We said that he should raise any future concerns with them.

Summary

Mr C said that he had been suffering pain from his rib cage for a number of years and believed he had a displaced rib. He complained that the board delayed in providing him with treatment or a firm diagnosis. He wanted to be referred to a chiropractor (a practitioner who uses their hands to treat disorders of the bones, muscles and joints) and was unhappy that the board declined to provide this.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, and considering Mr C's medical records, our investigation found that while the treatment given to Mr C took place over a considerable period of time, there were no periods of unreasonable delay. The x-rays carried out were appropriate and timely. Although Mr C wanted to be referred to a chiropractor, our adviser said that physiotherapy was an acceptable, reasonable alternative, and the board had provided this.

Summary

Mrs C's son (Mr A) sustained a head injury while playing sport. He attended A&E at Perth Royal Infirmary where he was examined and discharged. He was later found to have suffered a fracture to his neck which required surgery to correct. Mrs C complained that her son was not properly assessed in A&E and should have been sent for medical imaging. The board stated that they had followed established guidance on the decision-making process regarding medical imaging and that on the information available at the time regarding Mr A’s symptoms there was no reason to perform any medical imaging.

We took independent medical advice on this complaint from one advisers, who told us that Mr A's assessment in A&E was thorough and adhered to the relevant guidance. The adviser also said when Mr A was examined there was no obvious reason to refer Mr A for imaging. We considered Mr A’s treatment to have been reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment she received as an out-patient at Perth Royal Infirmary. She was being treated for a bladder complaint and was prescribed a drug (trospium chloride) as part of her treatment. Shortly after this she had a relapse of a previous mental health problem, and she attributed this to being prescribed the drug.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who was of the view that the choice of drug was reasonable for a patient in Mrs C's age group, and with her medical history and medical condition. The adviser said that this type of drug was less, rather than more, likely to cause a worsening of a patient's mental health, that it was an appropriate choice of therapy and that Mrs C's reaction was very unusual.

The outcome Mrs C was seeking was to have her medical notes annotated with a warning not to prescribe this drug to her in the future and the board had told us during the investigation that they had already put notes in the relevant records. We asked the board to confirm in writing to Mrs C, and to us, that this had been done.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her medical practice had not provided her with reasonable care and treatment. Mrs C had suffered from cancer before so, when she noticed swelling on her leg and groin, she suspected it had returned and went to the practice immediately. During the following months she went there a number of times and various tests were arranged. When the practice then referred her to hospital, cancer was diagnosed. Mrs C did not feel that the care she received from the practice was appropriate.

We took independent advice from one of our advisers, who is an experienced GP, who reviewed Mrs C's medical records and explained that they showed that the practice had been alert to the possibility of cancer throughout Mrs C's consultations and had arranged appropriate tests and investigations. The adviser also said that the practice made reasonable referrals, on the basis of the information available at the time, and had considered the whole picture of Mrs C’s symptoms.

Although we recognised that this was a most significant and distressing matter for Mrs C, our role was to consider whether, based on the evidence available to the practice at the time and without hindsight, they had provided her with reasonable care and treatment. The advice we received was clear - that the practice had investigated and referred Mrs C appropriately - and on this basis we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Miss C has suffered from acne for a number of years. She complained to us that the medical practice had failed to offer appropriate support and treatment for her condition. She had asked to be referred to an endocrinologist (a specialist in a branch of medicine dealing with hormones) but the practice had refused and offered to refer her to a psychologist. We reviewed Miss C's medical records and found that over a prolonged period the practice had carried out appropriate assessments and had sought specialist opinions in an effort to manage her condition.

Summary

Ms C complained that, during a consultation at her medical practice, her GP asked her whether she was paranoid. She found this distressing and the GP's approach to be blunt and unprofessional. The GP had discussed referring her to the local community mental health team, but Ms C indicated that she did not want this. The police contacted her three days later and she was admitted to hospital under a compulsory treatment order (an order that allows professionals to treat a person's mental illness). Ms C then complained to us that her GP had referred her to psychiatric services against her wishes.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that, although Ms C's GP had discussed a possible referral to psychiatric services, no referral was actually made and no confidential information was shared with the community mental health team.