Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably prevented him from accessing prison activities, because they had imposed special security measures on him.

We found that, under The Prisons and Young Offenders (Scotland) Rules 2011, the SPS have the right to impose such measures. The records showed that they had explained the need for these to Mr C, and they had been reviewed with him periodically. The records also showed that Mr C had been offered access to prison activities, some of which he declined or had not yet taken up. Where activities were restricted, the reason for this had been explained.

Summary

Mr C represented a number of people at a planning appeal hearing after the council issued a planning enforcement notice about advertising hoardings that they said had been erected without permission. He said that as part of that hearing, the council deliberately misled the Scottish Government's Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals with regard to the number of enforcement notices served, and also about their own policy on the sponsorship of roundabouts. He thought that this incorrect information may well have prejudiced the outcome for his clients.

During our investigation, we obtained independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers. The investigation found that while internal email exchanges were confusing and conflicting about the number of enforcement notices served, there was no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead, as Mr C had suggested. We accepted that the emails concerned represented council officers' reflections in the aftermath of the planning hearing but before a decision had been given. They were not intended to contradict the council's formal position but were made in anticipation of a possible finding against the council and what might then have to be addressed. Although we did not make any formal recommendations, we did point out to the council that this presented a confusing picture and that their policy should be clear to the public.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a building warrant and completion certificate issued for their property in 2001. Their concerns related to the foul drainage and surface water drainage systems at the property. Mr and Mrs C complained that the completion certificate should not have been issued as the drainage system built did not comply with the building warrant. In particular, they complained that the drainage system was not wholly contained within their property. They also complained about the council's handling of their representations.

During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had considered and had responded to the issues raised by Mr and Mrs C. They had explained that changes could be made to the plans without the need for an amendment to the building warrant, as long as the new layout complied with the relevant regulations, and that the building regulations did not require drainage systems to be wholly contained within individual properties. The council confirmed that it was the professional judgement of officers that the requirements of the building regulations had been met, and that the revised drainage had been inspected and tested. We were also satisfied that the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations.

Summary

Mr C applied for listed building consent to replace the original sash and case windows and skylights with double-glazed units of the same design. The owners of a neighbouring property also applied for consent for similar changes. Mr C complained that, whilst his neighbours were quickly granted permission to upgrade their windows, his application was rejected. He did not feel that the council considered his application fairly, or on a consistent basis with his neighbours' application.

Our investigation found that the two applications could not be directly compared. The neighbouring property's windows had been replaced in the past with units that were not in keeping with the original design of the building. Guidance issued by Historic Scotland promotes the preservation of original designs and materials and the council, appropriately, approved the neighbour's plans to reintroduce windows that were of a similar design to what would originally have been used. In Mr C's case, the council were not convinced that his windows could not be refurbished and kept in their original form. We were satisfied that on more than one occasion they invited Mr C to provide evidence that replacement was required, but he was unable to do so.

Mr C had pointed out that he appealed the council's decision to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), and it was ultimately overturned. The DPEA decided that the Historic Scotland guidance did not have to be applied rigorously in Mr C's case, as his application provided an opportunity to bring uniformity back to an arrangement of windows of mixed design. We viewed this, however, as an example of the planning system working effectively, rather than of the council acting inappropriately. Although there was an initial misunderstanding about the age of some of the windows, we did not find that this affected the council's decision, and we found no evidence that it was based on flawed or incorrect information. Rather, it was based on and supported by Historic Scotland's guidance.

Summary

Mr C accepted the tenancy of a sheltered home, which he said required some upgrading as the bath was not suitable for him and he wanted to have a shower fitted. He said that although he contacted the occupational therapy service in February 2012, and was told that an appointment would be made to assess his needs, the service did not contact him. He also said that when he called to enquire about the appointment he was told it had been overlooked and that it would not be possible to make an appointment for him until near the end of May 2012. As he had to vacate his current property by 1 June 2012, he decided to arrange for the bathroom to be upgraded himself, including the removal of the bath and the installation of a shower. When, on completion, he asked for financial assistance towards the costs involved, this was refused as no assessment had been carried out and a retrospective recommendation could not be made.

Our investigation found no evidence that Mr C's assessment had been overlooked. We found that an occupational therapist had phoned him in April 2012 to say that he was on the waiting list for an assessment but this could not be completed until he was in the property. He was advised of the procedures and potential waiting times for an assessment, and the therapist also explained that his medical conditions would be taken into consideration but it would be his functional ability that would determine what would be provided, and in the meantime he could maintain hygiene by washing. As we were satisfied that the council had made him fully aware of the process that needed to be undertaken before a shower could be considered for him, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C said that her elderly parents' home had been burgled twice in the last 18 months and she was very unhappy with the council's response to the situation. She said that council staff had misinformed her father by giving various reasons why they would not fit locks to his windows to prevent further burglaries. She was particularly annoyed at the refusal as she said the tenant's handbook advises that all accessible windows should be locked using a key locking mechanism.

Our investigation found that the council's repairs and maintenance policy explains that the fitting of additional locks is the tenant's responsibility. This is also reflected in the tenant's guide to repairs and maintenance policy which Ms C's parents would have been given when they took up the tenancy. We were satisfied that section 2.12 of the tenant's handbook, which refers to ensuring all accessible windows are fitted with key-operated locks, was for advice and information only. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs A) who was concerned about the care and treatment of her late husband (Mr A). After Mr A fell and broke his hip, he had an operation in Monklands Hospital to repair it. That night he climbed out of bed and fell to the floor. He did not complain of any pain at the time, but when he woke in the early morning he complained of pain in his other hip. He was reviewed by a doctor, and an x-ray revealed that he had broken his other hip. Mrs A was told about this at 07:30 that morning. Mr A had another operation that day to repair his second broken hip, and was monitored closely for the rest of the day. The following day, he was found to be confused and was reviewed by a junior doctor. Mrs A was concerned that her husband should have been more closely monitored, that a doctor was not called soon enough, and that she was not informed of his fall until the following morning. She was also unhappy with the level of attention given to her husband's confusion following the second operation. She has said that this was only noted and acted upon after she raised persistent concerns with staff.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our advisers, who is an experienced nurse. She said that an appropriate care plan was in place for Mr A, which included the appropriate use of bed rails and that he had been appropriately monitored after both operations. She also considered that after Mr A fell, it was appropriate for staff to delay phoning Mrs A until the morning, as there was no immediate indication that he had been injured in the fall. She also reviewed the evidence in relation to Mr A's confusion after his second operation, and found that the records indicated that nursing staff took appropriate action by alerting doctors to Mr A's confusion. On the basis of this advice, we did not uphold the complaint as we found no evidence of failings in the care and treatment of Mr A.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy worker representing her client (Miss A), complained that the board unreasonably told Miss A in writing about a decision to refer her to cancer services rather than in a face-to-face meeting, and unreasonably failed to discuss the diagnosis and treatment options with Miss A before making this referral.

Miss A had suffered for a number of years with a condition that caused pain and discomfort in her joints. In 2011, she also reported a swelling in her groin, which she felt was increasing in size. Her doctor referred her for physiotherapy and then to orthopaedic (involving the musculoskeletal system) services, and she was seen by a consultant orthopaedic surgeon for the first time in April 2012. After several investigations, including x-rays and a scan, the diagnosis remained inconclusive. The surgeon consulted with a colleague in a specialist cancer team by phone, and followed this up with a formal written referral. The specialist team took over Miss A's management, and diagnosed a non-cancerous lump, which was treated.

During our investigation we took independent advice from a physiotherapist and an orthopaedic surgeon. We found that the investigations and referral to the specialist team were reasonable, appropriate and timely. We found that it was reasonable that the surgeon did not tell Miss A in person that he was referring her there, as to have arranged an appointment for this purpose would have delayed the final diagnosis and treatment. Similarly, we considered it reasonable that the surgeon did not give a firm diagnosis or discuss treatment options with Miss A, because at the time of the referral and before the team took over her treatment, no such diagnosis had been made.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the medical and nursing care and treatment provided to her late husband (Mr C) under the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP - a care planning system for dying patients) when he was in Raigmore Hospital. Mr C had suffered a spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (bleeding within the skull), the effects of which had possibly been magnified by warfarin (a type of medicine that is given to stop clots forming in the blood) that he had, appropriately, been taking.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers who explained, after examining Mr C's medical records, that the prospects of any sort of meaningful recovery from such a severe brain injury were non-existent. The records showed that the doctor's conclusion had been that Mr C's condition had deteriorated, and the family had accepted this and that the implementation of the LCP would be appropriate. The adviser said that the principal aims of the LCP were to ensure that patients who were dying were not subjected to unnecessary investigations such as blood tests that would not alter the outcome, but that they would receive all care necessary to maintain their comfort and relieve any distress. In view of this, we found that it had been reasonable to place Mr C on the LCP and then to keep him on it. We also found that the LCP had been implemented appropriately.

In addition, we found that the medical and nursing care records indicated that Mr C received good and entirely appropriate care while he was in hospital. There were also detailed records of discussions with Mrs C and her family. In view of all of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison health centre would not prescribe the pain relief medication that he was receiving before he went to prison, and that the medication they did prescribe was inadequate.

We explained to Mr C that medication decisions by prison health centres will not automatically be the same as such decisions in the past. For example, some medications are not considered appropriate for use in prison because of their particular potential for abuse in a prison setting. It is for the prison health centre to carry out their own assessment of the individual and decide what, if any, medication or other treatment would be appropriate.

In Mr C's case, we looked at the board's policy on prescribing pain relief in prisons, and at Mr C's medical records. We found that he had had an appropriate assessment. We also took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that the decision about what action to take had been medically appropriate, including the reasons for the medication that was prescribed for Mr C. We did not, therefore, uphold his complaint.