Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C applied to renew his concessionary travel card, but completed a form for a new application instead of requesting a renewal. This created a duplicate record for him on the system, which stopped the application process. When this was identified, the new record was cancelled and the renewal processed but Mr C did not receive the card in time for a long journey he had to make to attend a hospital appointment. His old card had expired by this point so he could not claim his full entitlement to expenses for the journey. He complained that the council were at fault for not providing him with appropriate advice and he felt that they were unreasonably blaming him for the delay.

The council said that they forward application forms to Transport Scotland for processing, as most of the responsibility for administering the scheme lies there. They explained that council staff only have limited administrative access to the card management system, including the ability to order card renewals once continued eligibility is confirmed. Transport Scotland then produce and dispatch the card. The council said the responsibility lies with cardholders to contact them in good time to arrange a renewal. They also said that the guidance notes with new application forms point out that these should not be used for renewal applications, and explained that receipt of a duplicate application freezes the process until a cardholder makes an enquiry, which prompts them to intervene and manually correct this.

Mr C felt that the council were responsible for the error as they did not give him clear advice and accepted the new application form from him. However, we were unable to identify what information he provided to the council or what advice they gave him. Due to their limited role, we were satisfied that it was appropriate for them to have forwarded the form to Transport Scotland in the first instance. They appeared to have done so without undue delay and, when the error was brought to their attention, they promptly fixed this. We found no evidence to suggest that the council provided Mr C with advice contrary to that set out in the guidance notes that were with the form he completed. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C said that for nearly two years her child had experienced bullying at school and that the problem was not being resolved. Miss C said that matters had reached the point where her child's sleep and health were affected and that, on occasion, her child was refusing to go to school. Miss C said that the behaviour of the children concerned was becoming worse and that the school were failing to take reasonable measures to protect her child.

When investigating the complaint, we carefully considered the complaints correspondence, the school's incident log, the council's anti-bullying policy and the school's policy on promoting positive behaviour. Our investigation found that, while bullying had taken place, not all of the incidents were directed against Miss C's child, and sometimes allegations had been made about her child as well. However, all reported incidents had been logged and the action taken about them was recorded. The school believed that the situation was improving and the evidence available confirmed this. Although we understood the difficult situation in which Miss C and her child found themselves, we did not uphold the complaint as we found that the school had taken all reasonable measures to deal with the matter.

Summary

Mrs C wanted to buy her home under the right to buy legislation. She complained that her association were unreasonably refusing her request, and that they gave inconsistent reasons for their refusal. The association explained that when Mrs C left her previous tenancy she had entered into an assured tenancy, under which she had no right to buy. Her tenancy was then changed to a Scottish secure tenancy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Under this kind of tenancy, she (technically) accrued a modernised right to buy after five years. However, the council had already suspended the right to buy in the area, and had then asked for a further suspension, which the Scottish Government granted. This meant that Mrs C would not be able to exercise the modernised right to buy until 2022.

We considered all the information provided by Mrs C and the association. We also reviewed the law which determines the right to buy, and the relevant government guidance. Having done so, we were satisfied that the association had complied with their responsibilities in terms of Mrs C's right to buy. We also noted that, throughout this process, the association had given her clear and consistent explanations about why her application was refused.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the co-operative restricted his contact with them using their unacceptable actions policy. They did this because they said they found the volume and content of his emails unacceptable. Mr C disagreed, saying that he only responded to what they sent him, and he did not think his correspondence was generally out of order.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether his correspondence was inappropriate as that was a matter for the co-operative - we would only look at how they implemented the policy. Our investigation considered how the decision was taken, how it was communicated and how it was recorded and reviewed. We found that they had explained the decision, outlined the contact arrangements, confirmed how long restrictions would be in place, and recorded all this on their computer system. This meant that the co-operative had done as they should have and had implemented their policy reasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about poor service and the length of time that it took the association to deal with various complaints about lighting in his close. He also said that the association had not kept him properly informed of progress over a number of months.

After reviewing the association's complaint file and their comments, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that they repaired the close lighting in a timely manner and handled his complaint appropriately.

Summary

Miss C complained that, despite knowing that she had been paying the rent for and planned to take over the tenancy of her sister's property, the association had refused to allow her to do so and she was now homeless. She was also unhappy with the way a housing officer dealt with the matter.

We found that the association's housing allocation policy says that if a tenant moves out of their home the association will consider assigning the tenancy to a member of the household. The applicant must, however, have had permission to live there and to have had it as their only or principal home for at least 12 months before they can apply for this. The policy also says that, with the association's written permission, tenants may sublet their property if they are absent on a temporary basis. However, the sublet property will always remain in the name of the tenant, and the person subletting it cannot succeed to the tenancy. All this information was included in the tenancy handbook that Miss C's sister would have received when she took up the tenancy.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that Miss C had not obtained permission to live in the property, so she could not be considered to be assigned it, nor could her sister have sublet the property as she was not going to be absent on a temporary basis. We also found no evidence to suggest that a member of staff acted in an unprofessional manner.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the board were failing to follow his agreed dental treatment plan and failed to provide adequate care and treatment for his sleep disorder.

We found nothing in Mr C's dental records to suggest that the board were not following the plan suggested at his initial appointment. We took independent advice from our GP medical adviser about the treatment for his sleep disorder. After reviewing Mr C's medical records, our adviser said that the board's actions had been reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison doctors refused to prescribe him tramadol for his back pain. He said he had previously been prescribed this by his community GP. The prison doctors prescribed alternative medication, which Mr C said was not effective in controlling his pain.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers, who is a GP. He told us that strong opiates (morphine related drugs) like high dose tramadol should only ever be used on a short term basis for lower back pain. He noted that the recent re-classification of tramadol to a higher category reflected the concerns that doctors have had for some time about the drug, its potential side effects and its potential to be abused. In the circumstances, he considered that the prison doctors had acted reasonably in offering Mr C alternatives to tramadol. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that after her GP referred her to orthopaedics (the specialty for conditions of the musculoskeletal system) at Wishaw General Hospital, she was inappropriately allocated to podiatry (specialising in disorders of the foot, ankle and lower limb). She had previously attended private podiatry appointments with no improvement to her condition, and thought she should have been referred to an orthopaedic surgeon. She thought that this would have resulted in quicker treatment and would have meant that she did not need to obtain a private referral to an orthopaedic surgeon. She also said that the board should have told her that she was being allocated to a podiatrist, to allow her to decide whether to request further private referrals and avoid delays in treatment.

We considered the information she provided and that from the board. We found that Ms C's GP gave her a routine referral to orthopaedics and was initially triaged (deciding where patients should be treated, based on their condition) by an extended scope practitioner (ESP) podiatrist in the orthopaedic team. This person can give an onward referral to podiatry or other specialisms, and can also request specialist investigations, such as radiology and scans. Triage could include a further review by other ESPs and surgical staff. We noted that the review by the ESP podiatrist was in line with the board's protocols. Although the board had not told Ms C or her GP that she would be triaged this way, this did not disadvantage her as this is what happens to all routine orthopaedic referrals. The board explained, and we accepted, that it would be impractical to tell all patients and GPs who would carry out the triage. As the board had clearly followed their protocols, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C's son (Master A) suffered multiple mini-seizures and nausea and vomiting after his epilepsy medication was increased. Mr C and his GP tried to contact Master A's neurology consultant at Hairmyres Hospital for advice but he was on leave, and there was then confusion over where Master A should be referred. Mr C complained that there was inadequate cover during the consultant's absence and that staff did not provide timely advice.

Our investigation found that during the consultant's leave general advice was available from the covering neurology service. If emergency treatment was needed, Master A could have gone to the A&E department of the local hospital, where staff would have sought neurology advice if required. Master A did not, however, need emergency treatment. We also found that board staff gave appropriate advice to the GP to reduce the medication, pending a scheduled review appointment with the neurology consultant.