Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C made three complaints about a wind turbine about which, because of its distance from his home, he had not received neighbour notification. The planning application was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C complained that the council failed to require that a revised visual impact assessment was carried out (there had been an increase in the turbine height from a previously approved proposal); unreasonably granted planning consent despite the turbine height exceeding their own 60 metre guideline; and failed to take into account the impact of the development on properties between 500 and 750 metres from the site.

Having taken detailed independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the planning authority had clearly taken account of the material consideration of visual impact, both on the landscape and on adjacent houses. He considered that the guidance was essentially a strategic tool rather than a rigid policy threshold which could not be breached, and that the council had showed some flexibility and discretion by approving a turbine one metre higher than that guidance. He also said that the report of handling (a document about the application) and other documents submitted with the application showed that the visual and other impacts (particularly noise) on properties under 500 metres had been considered acceptable. In the adviser's view, it could then reasonably be assumed that this would be the case for dwellings sited more than 500 metres away.

Summary

Mr C made nine complaints about a wind turbine. Because of the distance between the turbine and his property, he had not received neighbour notification about the development, which was determined by council officers under delegated powers. Mr C said that the council ignored current guidance in assessing the noise impact; the officers’ report of handling (a document about the application) unreasonably failed to make a clear distinction about whether the separation distance was from the wind turbine to his property or to his house and contained a number of other defects. He also said that the assessment and report of handling were flawed in failing to take into account the impact of disruption to him from ancillary works, and unreasonably failed to address how the wind turbine would connect to the grid. He further complained that the council had not imposed an upper limit in the grant of planning permission and had unreasonably failed to handle his complaint in compliance with their published service standards.

After obtaining detailed independent advice on this complaint from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The adviser said that the council had taken into account current advice on noise impact; that the report of handling was not defective in respect of the matters raised by Mr C and that provision for the ancillary works had been made in the planning consent conditions. We founds that the other matters raised constituted permitted development (development that does not need planning permission). Finally we found that the council had handled the complaint reasonably and without delay.

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Mrs A) that the council did not reasonably investigate reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, who is a council tenant, and about whom there had been many other complaints. Ms C wrote to the council several times, then contact stopped for a year, by the end of which Mr and Mrs A had moved. When Ms C first contacted us over a year after that, we told her that she would first need to complain through the council’s complaints procedures. She did so, and then complained again to us. We suspended our consideration of the complaint to allow further information to be supplied, explaining to Ms C that we could normally only look at a complaint about something that had happened, or that she had found out about, within the last twelve months. When we re-opened her complaint, we found we were effectively restricted to looking into matters for about a seven month period, until before Mr and Mrs A moved out. We considered the council’s actions during that period, and found that they had issued a final warning to the tenant. Our investigation did not find this unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C purchased a property, which proved to have significant structural problems in an extension completed by the previous owner. Mr C made a number of complaints about the completion certificate process, and said that the council had failed to ensure that the local authority building surveyor who verified the certificate had carried out his role properly. He was also unhappy with the council's complaints handling.

Mr C said that the building warrant for the property had expired, and no extension had been sought before the certificate of completion was granted. He believed that this meant that the building regulations in force at the time of the inspection should have applied to the property. He said that this would have required a different type of electrical certificate to that presented to the surveyor, and would have resulted in significant problems with the electrics being identified. Mr C thought that the council would not then have approved the completion certificate, and he would not have purchased the property.

Our investigation found that the local authority did not have responsibility to carry out anything more than a non-disruptive survey, and that responsibility for ensuring that work on the property matched that described on the building warrant lay with the individual submitting the completion certificate. We also found that the grounds for refusing an extension to a building warrant only apply where little or no construction has taken place. In this case the building was completed within the timeframe of the warrant and the completion certificate applied for, so there would have been no grounds for refusal.

We also found that the extent of a non-disruptive survey was a matter of professional judgement for the building surveyor. Although Mr C disputed the professionalism of his work, this was not a matter that we could consider. We also found that the surveyor was only required to carry out a 'reasonable enquiry' with regard to specialist matters such as electrical certification.

On the complaints handling, although we found that the council's first response to Mr C lacked empathy, given the difficult and distressing situation in which he found himself, their overall handling of his complaint was reasonable.

Summary

Mr and Ms C complained because the council decided to transfer their child to a composite school class (a class in which there are pupils from two or more year groups). Mr and Ms C said that this was done without any proper prior notice or discussion. They also said they learned this three days before the end of term and suspected that this was intentional. Mr and Ms C also complained that their child was being discriminated against in terms of age and questioned whether the council had followed their stated policy.

When investigating the complaint, we took into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence, phone notes, emails and the policy concerned. We did not uphold the complaint, as our investigation found that the council had taken action under the policy to inform parents (through newsletters and the parent council) about what was happening. Council documents also showed that it had not been possible to tell Mr and Ms C earlier, as the school did not know its final roll until near the end of term, and further changes to the roll could have led to further restructuring. Although Mr and Ms C also believed that their complaint had not been handled correctly, the evidence showed that they had been advised of a delay and the reasons for it, and that they had said they were happy with this.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Ms A). Ms A left her housing association property in January 2010. Some months later the association sent her a bill for rechargeable repair work (work carried out by the association that the tenant/former tenant has to pay for). Mr C said his brother phoned the association at the time to query the bill but nothing further was heard. The association sent Ms A two further letters, then nothing more until March 2013 when they sent a statement of account pointing out that the bill remained unpaid. Mr C phoned the association to query the bill and told them that he was to be the contact for his mother's account, as she suffered from health problems. He said he did not receive a response. The debt was then passed to a recovery company who wrote directly to Ms A, which she found distressing. Mr C complained to the association about their handling of the bill, then to us that the association delayed unreasonably in pursuing Ms A for the debt.

Our investigation found that in 2010 the association contacted Ms A three times about the debt. While we accepted that there was a long period during which there was no contact, they had pursued the debt more than once in 2010, which was within a reasonable time. We considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C (or his family) to have taken steps at that time to ensure that the matter was resolved. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, and we also noted that the association had already apologised for the time taken, provided an explanation and reduced the bill. However, we did highlight to them that they should consider how they pass information to their recovery company as it appeared that the association did not tell the company that correspondence should be with Mr C, who was acting on behalf of Ms A.

Summary

Ms C complained to the housing association about various types of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. She complained that the association had failed to deal appropriately with her complaints and had unreasonably failed to carry out their promise to fix her neighbour’s flooring to limit household noise causing disturbance to her.

We examined diaries kept by Ms C, together with the association’s files on their contact with her and the investigation of her complaints. The evidence showed that housing officers had carried out appropriate enquiries, had explored the possibility of mediation and had told Ms C the outcome of their enquiries and why they were unable to pursue matters. We could not establish whether Ms C was given promises that flooring repairs would be done, but we found that housing officers had agreed that a survey should take place, and that repairs were later carried out. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C and his mother (Mrs A) received a visit from two community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) who assessed his and his mother's needs. At the end of the interview they mentioned that the results might be shared with colleagues in the social work department. Mr C was at that time involved in a dispute with that department about guardianship of his mother and was concerned that the information obtained might be used against him. He contacted the CPNs shortly after the assessment and said that he would not allow disclosure of the information without his permission. He complained to the board that the CPNs had not been open with him at the start of the assessment that information would be shared with the department to be considered as part of the application for guardianship.

We did not, however, uphold Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that a consultant psychiatrist had asked the CPNs to carry out the assessment to establish if Mrs A had any health or social care needs, and not as part of the guardianship application.

Summary

Miss C and her mother complained about the care and treatment provided to Miss C's late father (Mr A) after he attended hospital for a day-case urology procedure (urology is a specialty in medicine that deals with problems of the urinary system and the male reproductive system). He had been unwell in the days leading up to the appointment. During the appointment, Mr A was found to have a fast heart rate and shortness of breath. The procedure was cancelled, and he was immediately admitted to the accident and emergency department, then transferred to a ward. Despite treatment, Mr A's condition deteriorated, and he was moved to the intensive care unit (ICU) where he was treated for six days. Although Mr A's condition was stabilised, his prognosis (the forecast of the likely outcome of his condition) was poor and he was transferred back to the ward to be more comfortable during the final days of his life. Mr A died two days later.

Miss C and her mother complained about the board's treatment of Mr A and said that they had failed to manage his pre-existing medical conditions. They also complained that staff in the ICU did not provide an adequate handover to ward staff when Mr A returned to the ward. As such, the ward staff did not know about his poor prognosis and did not ensure that end-of-life arrangements, such as extended visiting times and a single room, were in place.

As part of our investigation, we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that Mr A had a number of medical problems, including that his heart was failing and his kidney function had deteriorated significantly. Treating one condition led to a deterioration of the other and we acknowledged that managing Mr A's condition was a fine balancing act. Although staff gave Mr A a poor prognosis, we found that they agreed to his family's wishes that his kidney problems be treated in the ICU. This led to his condition being stabilised, although his prognosis remained poor and we were satisfied that this was explained clearly to the family. Our adviser said that the records showed that Mr A's underlying medical conditions were treated appropriately throughout his admission.

With regard to the handover between ICU and the ward, we acknowledged that the ICU had told family members that Mr A's prognosis was poor and that he did not have much time left. However, ward staff were also told that Mr A's condition was stable and were given no indication that a sudden decline in his condition was imminent. Under such circumstances, we found it appropriate that normal ward care was given, with normal visiting times in operation until such time as the patient entered the terminal phase of their illness. After Mr A's condition deteriorated significantly on the morning of his death, his family were given the opportunity to visit him outwith normal visiting times.

Summary

Ms C's late mother (Mrs A) was treated in hospital as an in-patient for illnesses that included pneumonia and chronic heart failure. Ms C complained that during that time the hospital communicated inadequately with her and other family members about Mrs A's medical condition. In particular Ms C said that she and family members were not made aware of the severity of Mrs A's condition before she was discharged from hospital. Mrs A died around two weeks after being discharged.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who considered all aspects of the medical evidence. We took account of his advice alongside all the documentation supplied by Ms C and the board. Our adviser said that when Mrs A was admitted to hospital she was suffering from severe illnesses. When she was discharged, these had all been treated and were not significant ongoing issues. He noted that Mrs A had suffered from a severe degree of heart failure prior to admission. The adviser said that the records showed that staff had communicated appropriately with Ms C and other family members about Mrs A's true condition, in keeping with the General Medical Council's guidance on communication. Given this, we did not uphold this complaint.