Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C was admitted to Leverndale Hospital under a compulsory treatment order (an order that allows professionals to treat a person's mental illness). She was assessed by a consultant psychiatrist as suffering from paranoid psychosis (a form of delusional disorder). Ms C disagreed with this assessment and was concerned that the psychiatrist had rushed to a judgement based on little evidence. She believed he was reluctant to be seen to disagree with one of his senior colleagues who had assessed Ms C at home before her admission. Ms C was also concerned that the psychiatrist's assessment was based, in part, on incorrect information the police gave him, which he failed to challenge. Ms C said that she later learned that the psychiatrist had intended to discharge her around 11 days earlier than he eventually did.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a psychiatric specialist. We accepted their advice that Ms C's assessment, diagnosis and treatment were all reasonable. We also found the timing of Ms C's discharge to be appropriate and that she was allowed out of hospital on a limited basis before this, in line with accepted practice. We found no evidence to suggest that an earlier discharge date had been considered.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment and support that his late son (Mr A) received from the board. Mr A had been suffering from low mood and agitation for about two months. He tried to take an overdose, but was stopped by his family. Following a call to the local out-of-hours service, he went to Forth Valley Royal Hospital for a review by their mental health unit. After what Mr C considered to be a very brief assessment, Mr A was discharged home, with phone numbers for three support organisations should he become upset again. Mr A went to his GP two days later saying that he was still depressed and that he had considered taking his own life. His GP referred him back to the mental health unit, where another assessment was carried out and Mr A was discharged home again. He took his own life a few days later. Mr C complained that the mental health unit failed to act on the concerns raised by his son's GP or to properly assess the severity of his condition. He felt that, had they done so, Mr A might have been admitted to the hospital as an in-patient and might have been treated.

After taking independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that there was clear evidence that the mental health unit had acknowledged the concerns raised by Mr A's GP. The assessments that were carried out were thorough and followed accepted practice. We accepted his advice that, based on the information available to staff at both consultations, there was no cause for Mr A to be admitted as an in-patient. The adviser said that, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for Mr A to be discharged home with advice as to who to contact should he need support. He noted that Mr A was receiving medication from his GP and had reported benefitting from the support numbers he had been given.

Summary

Mrs C complained that when her father (Mr A) attended the out-of-hours (OOH) service with abdominal (stomach) pain, he was seen by a GP who failed to take into account his previous medical history and diagnosed Mr A as suffering from indigestion. Mr A felt the same for the next two days and then suddenly deteriorated and an ambulance was called. He was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of septicemia (blood poisoning) and pneumonia. Mr A died two weeks later.

The board maintained that the GP from the OOH service carried out an appropriate assessment. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, and we found that the OOH service GP had put himself in a position where he was aware of Mr A's medical history, that appropriate assessment and treatment were provided for the symptoms which were reported, and that there was no evidence that a hospital admission was required at that time.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us on behalf of her grandson (Mr A) about Mr A's medical practice. Mrs C did not feel that the practice had taken the appropriate steps to diagnose her grandson's illness. Mr A had attended the practice for consultations for about two months saying that, among other things, he had difficulty swallowing and a feeling of a blockage in his throat. Over the course of these consultations, blood tests were taken and Mr A was treated for anaemia. His symptoms did not improve and the practice referred him to a stomach specialist who found nothing and asked him to return two weeks later.

However, Mr A went to A&E and was admitted to hospital, where an underlying heart condition that would require surgery was diagnosed. While awaiting this surgery, Mr A suffered a stroke. Mrs C said that if the heart condition had been identified more promptly, then Mr A might not have had the stroke.

Although we understood this had been very difficult for Mrs C and Mr A, our role was to consider whether the steps the practice took were reasonable in the circumstances at the time. As part of our investigation, our GP medical adviser reviewed the medical notes and provided us with independent advice. Although he acknowledged how significant Mr A’s stroke had been, he explained that the symptoms had not suggested the underlying heart condition that Mr A actually had (which was a very rare condition in otherwise healthy individuals). The adviser also noted that the practice had listened to Mr A’s heart when he attended there, and this would have reduced any suspicion of Mr A’s underlying condition being heart-related. In light of this advice we did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C was very ill during the third year of his honours degree and, after being admitted to hospital, was diagnosed with a significant illness. He submitted a special circumstances application for the exams he was about to take.

When some six months later, at the end of his third year, Mr C received a fail mark for a second semester subject he said he was disadvantaged because he had missed foundation knowledge due to his absence through illness. He asked for his special circumstances to be taken into account for that subject. Mr C said he was given advice and reassurances that his submission of special circumstances for that subject would be considered at the end of his fourth year. He said the advice he was given was poor and that the reassurances given at the end of his third year were misleading.

When he received his final honours degree award he submitted an appeal to the university about his grading because he felt the low mark awarded in third year had impacted upon his overall grade at the end of his degree. He said the university had not properly considered the impact of his special circumstances, which he had been told they would do at the end of his final year. He complained that proper procedures had not been followed in dealing with his special circumstances and appeal.

Our investigation found that the university had fully considered the impact of his special circumstances and had followed their policy and procedures in dealing with his case, so we did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to act promptly and carry out suitable inspections and repairs to the public sewer following flooding at a family property.

We found that Scottish Water had responded within a day of logging the report of the flooding, and carried out an initial CCTV inspection. They did not find a fault, so they had the area network checked to ensure that sewer levels allowed Mr C's supply to drain effectively. When this was confirmed to be acceptable, they carried out a more extensive CCTV inspection but still found nothing. Scottish Water concluded that the flood was caused by an overload of the sewer, possibly due to very localised and sudden heavy rain. As this was not something they could predict, they said that they could not be held responsible. Having reviewed Scottish Water's actions and considered the terms of their policies and responsibilities, we were satisfied that they acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C has a small business premises attached to her home, which she operates for six months of the year. There is no water supply in the premises and Mrs C pays for her domestic water through her council tax. The council also bill Mrs C for her non-domestic rates, for which she receives a 100 percent small business allowance. Mrs C complained that, despite this, Business Stream billed her for water services to the business premises, and that this decision was unreasonable.

During our investigation we considered all the information from Mrs C and Business Stream, including Business Stream's policies about billing and the dual use of property (where a property is used for both domestic and commercial purposes). We found that Business Stream's policy said that where a property is in dual use, and each part of it has a separate rateable value listing on the Scottish Assessors Association website, the proprietor has to make payments for water on both. As the parts of Mrs C's property were separately listed, we found that Business Stream were entitled to bill her, and we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a family member was inappropriately refused entry to the prison to attend his case management meeting. The prison told Mr C that this was because the person had not been invited to attend. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C disputed that they were not invited and sent us a copy of a letter he said the person received asking them to attend the meeting.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that when Mr C was told that his case management meeting would be taking place, he was given instructions on what he should do if he wanted a family member there. In particular, he needed to complete a form with the details of who he wanted to attend the meeting and the prison would then invite that person. The SPS said that he did not return that form. They also told us that the prison did not send the letter Mr C sent us. In light of the evidence we saw, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was downgraded from open prison conditions after an incident, because he was suspected of breaching prison rules. He was placed on a misconduct report and the matter was referred to the police. The police did not take any further action and, ultimately, there was no hearing on the misconduct report. Mr C then complained that in his generic assessment paperwork and his parole dossier the Scottish Prison Services (SPS) referred to both the misconduct report and the related police investigation. He felt it was inappropriate for them to do so because the police did not take any action and he was not found guilty of breaching prison rules.

The SPS confirmed that, following the incident, Mr C was placed on a misconduct report but that the disciplinary hearing to decide whether he was guilty of the charge did not take place. As the police did not conclude their enquiries quickly enough the SPS had been unable to hold the hearing (to decide whether Mr C had breached prison rules) within the relevant timescale. The SPS confirmed that information about the misconduct report had been deleted from Mr C's record. They also explained, however, that despite both these outcomes it was still necessary to refer to the incident that resulted in Mr C being downgraded, to assess his risk and to identify any appropriate interventions to reduce it.

The evidence confirmed that the SPS had referred to both matters in Mr C's records. That information was, however, factual and as such they were entitled to refer to it. We were, therefore, satisfied that their reference to the information was appropriate, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had his family order a games console from an online company, and have it sent to the prison for him. However, the prison refused to allow Mr C to have the item in use and he complained that this was unreasonable.

The Scottish Prison Service provided us with a copy of the prison's items in use list, which confirmed that prisoners were only allowed to purchase games consoles from certain approved suppliers and that payment for these must be made from the prisoner's personal cash account. As Mr C did not follow the correct process when purchasing his games console, the prison refused to allow him to have it.