Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream had incorrectly calculated her bills after a leak was identified. She said that, despite being given an allowance (a 'burst allowance') to write off some of the excess water use caused by this leak, her business bill was still equivalent to five years water use.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had correctly calculated the bill. The leak had taken seven months to repair, but the maximum period that could be covered by the allowance was six months. Accordingly, Mrs C was liable for one month of excessive water usage, and this had increased her bill. Business Stream had acted reasonably and had challenged the burst allowance with Scottish Water (who are responsible for calculating these). However, we found that burst allowances are an entirely discretionary award, and Scottish Water, who were acting in line with their policies, had declined to change it. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who was a homeless applicant, was offered and accepted the tenancy of a council house. She subsequently reported a number of defects and made a number of requests for repairs, most significantly with respect to smells in her wet shower room, the operation of the central heating, a leaking roof and poor drainage in the rear garden, before applying for a transfer some two months after moving in. Ms C complained that the council unreasonably refused to carry out remedial work to bring her home up to the required housing standards.

Our investigation found that Ms C had accepted the house on the basis that it met her personal requirements, and the council explained that when it was allocated to her they considered it to have been of a lettable standard. After she moved in, Ms C had made a number of requests for repairs, and other repairs were requisitioned by council officers. We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found no evidence that the house did not meet the requisite letting standard when allocated to Ms C or that remedial work was required to bring it up to standard.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council were seeking to recover council tax and penalty charges from her that related to the year 1999. She said that she had paid all outstanding debts and that, although she could not prove this, neither could the council prove that she did not make payment.

We considered the information she provided and information obtained from our enquiries to the council. Councils do not usually keep copies of all correspondence in respect of historic debts, and in this case the council were able to show us that they issued a council tax bill and reminders at the time, as required by the regulations. As they were able to show that Ms C was billed at the time, and as they had no record of payment being received, we found no evidence that they failed to comply with their responsibilities under the council tax regulations. As there was no evidence of administrative failure in the way this matter was dealt with, we could not uphold the complaint.

Summary

In 2007 Mr C was granted planning permission for a development. He understood that a social housing contribution was required to activate the permission and paid this. He never undertook the development and a subsequent planning application superceded it in 2011. By this point the council's policy had changed and social housing contributions were no longer sought. Mr C requested that his contribution be refunded to him. The council declined to make any refund and told Mr C that the contribution had been an alternative to a section 75 agreement being made (this is a legal agreement that covers financial contributions to meet services and infrastructure needs of the local community associated with a new development).

Mr C complained to us that the council had not advised him of the option to enter into a section 75 agreement. However, we did not uphold his complaint as our investigation found that among the evidence gathered in this case was a letter from him to the council indicating that he had been aware that the contribution was an alternative to entering into a section 75 agreement.

Summary

Miss C complained about the wet electric heating system that the housing association installed. She complained that it was too expensive to run, and that the high bills were putting her in debt. She reported that she had adjusted her lifestyle so that she was using the cheaper rate of electricity, but was still having difficulty heating her home and this was causing dampness and mould.

In response to Miss C's complaints, the association checked the boiler to make sure it was functioning properly, and surveyed her property to assess whether it met their minimum energy efficiency standards. They also identified ways of reducing dampness in her home, and sought energy advice on her behalf, to identify if there was another provider that she could use to reduce her bills.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint, as we found that the association had met the requirements of their policies and procedures in the way they handled the difficulties she identified with her central heating system. Beyond this, they also sought advice on her behalf to assist with her bills.

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Ms A) about the way they had been treated when they complained to the housing association about anti-social behaviour from their neighbours. She said the association failed to follow their processes and procedures and that a member of staff was rude to her clients during a phone call.

Our investigation found that the housing association had in fact taken effective, appropriate action to resolve various incidents that had been complained about over a long period. There was evidence to show that they were in regular contact with Mr and Ms A, and involved other agencies as appropriate, and that they had dealt with formal complaints as set out in their complaints policy and procedures. On the matter of the phone call, as the association do not record calls, there was no objective evidence on which we could base a decision.

Summary

Mrs C, who lives on one of the Scottish islands, complained that the board failed to repay her full transport and accommodation costs when she escorted her mother to a mainland hospital for in-patient treatment. Mrs C had intended to stay for four nights, then take her mother home but, as her mother was not well enough to leave hospital on the expected date, Mrs C had to return home alone. She was unhappy that, in these circumstances, the board had not paid her full costs.

The board's patient transport policy says that they can only reimburse costs associated with escorting a patient to and from hospital. Mrs C had chosen to stay over, and the board explained that as her mother was not discharged when expected, there was only one approved journey for which an escort was required. They also explained that they can only reimburse accommodation costs when the escort stays and escorts the patient home (provided that the total cost of the stay does not exceed the cost of a second return fare to collect the patient). If the patient is not discharged when expected, accommodation costs cannot be reimbursed, but the board will pay for a second return journey to escort the patient home. We also found that the guidance says that authorised escorts are expected to return home at the earliest opportunity or to stay at their own expense. We noted that the patient travel team had advised Mrs C of the available options before the outward journey. On her return they had said that they would be happy to book a second flight for her to collect her mother, or alternatively if she organised her own flight for this, they would pay her overnight accommodation claim.

We did not uphold the complaint as we found that the board had acted in accordance with their procedures. We noted that although they were of the view that they had provided accurate information before Mrs C travelled, the board had also asked the patient travel team to review the guidance issued to patients and GPs, to ensure that it is as clear as possible for the future.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late daughter (Miss A) by two GPs at the practice. Miss A was 14 months old when she became ill with a fever, vomiting and diarrhoea. Mrs C treated her with Calpol (an over-the-counter children's medication, used to treat aches, pains and fever) and tepid baths when her temperature was high. The following day Miss A's condition had not improved so Mrs C contacted the practice, and Miss A was seen twice that day by two different GPs. A viral infection was diagnosed and Mrs C was told to continue the treatment and to introduce ibuprofen (an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medication). Mrs C asked if her daughter should be admitted to hospital but the GPs did not think there was evidence of a condition that warranted admission at that time. Early the next morning, however, Miss A collapsed. She was taken to hospital by emergency ambulance, but could not be revived. Mrs C also complained that after Miss A's death, one of the GPs involved did not contact the family to discuss the events and despite Mrs C seeing the GP in the local area on occasion, the GP did not speak to her.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that Miss A's symptoms indicated a viral infection, and that this was confirmed by the observations and examinations by the two GPs. Having studied Miss A's clinical records, the adviser said that the care, treatment and advice provided by the two GPs was reasonable. The post-mortem report on Miss A had confirmed the presence of a viral infection, and also a bacterial infection. Our adviser explained that this can occur when a patient’s system has been weakened by a viral infection, that it was not something that the GPs could have foreseen, and there was no evidence of it when they saw Miss A. Such infections can progress very quickly and cause organ failure and death in a short time. A consultant paediatrician, who reviewed the case and the post mortem report for the board, had said that even had Miss A been admitted to hospital, the outcome would be unlikely to have been any different, and our adviser agreed with this view.

On the matter of communication, one of the GPs involved said in response to the complaint that he had personally wished to speak to Mrs C and the family after Miss A died, but that the partners in the practice took a joint decision that the other GP involved (who was the practice's senior partner) should visit the family. This visit took place five days after Miss A's death. Having considered this, we took the view that the practice did communicate in a reasonable way with Mrs C at that time.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that her late husband (Mr C) received after an angiogram (a type of x-ray used to examine blood vessels) showed that he had two cerebral aneurysms (weak points in the blood vessels supplying blood to the brain, causing them to bulge or balloon out). Mr C's right leg had suddenly given way and he was unable to stand. He saw his GP two days later and was referred to a stroke clinic, where he was seen by a consultant the following day. The consultant found no evidence of any neurological problems and noted that Mr C's right thigh was tender, which would not be expected if a stroke had occurred. The consultant considered two other possible diagnoses: a drug side effect; or that the leg weakness related to back pain. However, he decided to request a scan of Mr C's head, given the history of vascular (circulatory) disease in his family.

The scan showed no evidence that Mr C had had a stroke or of what had caused the problems with his leg. It did, however, show a possible cerebral aneurysm. An angiogram was then carried out, which showed that Mr C had two cerebral aneurysms. The radiologist who interpreted the results suggested referral to a neurosurgical unit (dealing with surgery of the brain or other nerve tissue) but the consultant in the stroke clinic considered that the aneurysms were incidental and had not caused the problem with Mr C's leg. He arranged to see Mr and Mrs C to discuss the findings and then referred Mr C to a neurological unit for assessment. However, Mr C collapsed and died a few weeks later before attending the neurological unit.

We took independent advice on this case from two of our medical advisers - a GP and a neurosurgeon. We found that it was reasonable for the consultant in the stroke clinic to consider that the aneurysms had not caused the problems with Mr C's leg. We also found it reasonable that the consultant met Mr C before referring him to the neurological unit, and we noted that Mr C was referred to the unit two days after that meeting. As it was not considered that the aneurysms had caused the symptoms, an urgent referral was not necessary. We did not uphold the complaint as we did not find any failings on the part of the board.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of Ms B about the care and treatment given to her late father (Mr A) by the practice in the year before his death. Ms B was unhappy with the attitude of staff there, saying that the practice had not taken sufficient account of her father's symptoms, that they dismissed certain issues, and would only address one issue at a time. She thought that this meant they had missed symptoms that would have led them to identify his final diagnosis of lung cancer earlier.

Mr A attended the practice on numerous occasions in the year or so before his death. He reported a range of symptoms, including chest infections, incontinence, possible dementia, mobility issues, a dry mouth and a cough. He was referred for chest x-rays early in the year and again towards the end of the year, which were reported as showing no signs of active disease. He was also referred to urology and for a geriatric medicine review. It was at this review, a month before he died, that specific concerns were first raised about a possible cancer diagnosis. Mr A was referred for a scan, which found lung cancer that had spread to other parts of his body. Mr A died three days after the diagnosis.

We noted that Ms B complained that the practice were dismissive of her father's symptoms and that their attitude indicated they did not take his concerns seriously. As, however, there was no objective evidence of this, our investigation focused on Mr A's medical records. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who reviewed the practice's actions in respect of each of the issues Mr A had told them about. The adviser said that the practice referred Mr A for x-rays appropriately. While they could have done more to assist him with his reports of incontinence, what they did was fairly standard practice. In relation to Mr A's mobility, our adviser said that the practice assessed the situation appropriately. There had been some confusion around whether Mr A had a diagnosis of dementia, and our adviser indicated that the records showed that he did not. He said that there were references in correspondence which could have led to this confusion, and that Mr A may have been told that he had mild dementia. However, when Mr A raised his concerns with the practice, they had responded appropriately.

We found that the care and treatment given to Mr A was appropriate. He was referred for specialist opinion appropriately, and the practice took action to investigate concerning symptoms. Although they could have done more to assist him with the management of his continence issues, we noted that the adviser identified what they did as being standard practice.