Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled an increase in his daughter's home care charges. He said that the council had unreasonably applied a lower earnings threshold than the one approved by council members. Mr C was unhappy that the council had declined to issue a refund as recommended by a complaints review committee (CRC). We found that the council did, in exceptional circumstances, have the discretion to reject recommendations made by a CRC, and concluded that their decision was one that they were entitled to make in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council were failing to ensure that he had reasonable vehicular access to his home. He said he could not access it on a number of occasions because he could not pass parked cars. He complained that the council had carried out works that had narrowed the road, and allowed neighbours to construct a drive that effectively reduced the available parking space. Finally, he was unhappy that the council had refused his request to introduce parking restrictions to ensure he had clear access.

The council explained that they had built a fence beside the road for safety reasons and that after Mr C told them about the problems he was having, they moved the fence as much as they could to improve the road width. They inspected the site, and were of the view that Mr C could access his drive safely if neighbours parked considerately. They also inspected the driveway and said they did not consider it a safety hazard and that it did not restrict access along the road. They explained that if parked cars blocked access, Mr C should contact the police. The council also pointed out that introducing parking restrictions would involve making a traffic order. This would require a consultation with neighbours who might not be supportive, and the council thought that progressing an order at this time would not be appropriate.

We considered the evidence provided by both parties and reviewed the council's statutory responsibilities in terms of roads maintenance and parking. We noted that they had carried out works to improve safety and, when advised of the impact this had on access, had taken further action to move the fence and widen the access. We found that they had investigated all Mr C's concerns and had acted to try and improve access. We also noted that they had explained that they had no means of restricting parking other through a traffic order, which they considered inappropriate. We found no evidence to show that they failed to act appropriately on Mr C's concerns.

Summary

The council gave planning approval to Mrs C's neighbour to demolish a building and build a garage and boundary walls. Mrs C then complained that the council failed to protect her access to her property and a general right of way, and failed to take full consideration of the flood risk and consult with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). She also complained that they had earlier failed to take action when her neighbour had demolished the building (which Mrs C claimed to own) without planning permission.

After taking independent advice from one or our planning advisers, we found that the council had acted reasonably. Mrs C had claimed that the walls effectively left her property land-locked. She also complained that they blocked a right of way used by pedestrians to access the foreshore. The council had approved the development based on the fact that there were many other lanes in the area with access to the foreshore, including one on the opposite side of Mrs C's property. They also said there was no recorded right of way on the lane, and they did not consider that it would be reasonable to establish one. Our view was that this was reasonable and proportionate.

The council accepted that there is some sea flooding of the foreshore and nearby streets and lanes each year. However, the properties involved in the application had not been flooded and were outside the flood-risk area on SEPA's maps. The council considered whether the development would cause a material increase in properties at risk of flooding - this is the trigger for mandatory consultation with SEPA on a planning application. They asked their own flood prevention unit for advice, who said that as the development did not cause a material increase, consultation with SEPA was not required. This was confirmed by SEPA's senior planning adviser. After some adjustments to the plans to allow sea water to escape in the event of flooding, the application was approved. Our adviser considered this was reasonable and that consultation with SEPA was not required.

The demolished building was on the neighbour's land. We were unable to establish ownership but, as the council had treated Mrs C as the owner, we continued our investigation on that basis. We found that the building was demolished without planning permission but that retrospective permission had been granted. The neighbour had submitted a certificate stating that he owned the land, and the council said that the onus was then on him to ensure there were no legal or other barriers to prevent the works starting once planning permission was granted. Our adviser agreed, and said that this was a private legal matter between Mrs C and her neighbour and there was no requirement under planning legislation for the council to take action.

Summary

When Mrs C raised concerns about shadowing that had appeared on her living room and kitchen ceilings, the association investigated and took action to resolve the problem, and did so again later, when the shadowing reappeared. More recently, they carried out further investigations and work in response to Mrs C's concerns that the shadowing was reappearing, and recommended that the affected areas were periodically washed down with soapy water. Mrs C complained to us that while the association had taken some action to resolve the problem, she was not satisfied they had done so effectively. She was also unhappy with the response to her complaints, as she felt they had dismissed her concerns, failed to look at the problem, and created a biased and misleading narrative of events which portrayed her in a negative light.

Our investigation found that the association had acted appropriately, including bringing in equipment to check humidity levels, inspecting the insulation and ventilation in her loft and having an external specialist inspect the property. After making a number of checks over a period of time, during which they had not been able to identify any specific problems, the association said that they found Mrs C's property to be structurally sound with no damp and that they would take no further action. We found that the association's actions and their handling of the complaint were reasonable, and that they had taken Mrs C's concerns seriously.

Summary

Mr C said that he had to call NHS 24 for assistance twice in two days. He said that he told staff he would not be able to explain his problem and because of this it was incorrectly interpreted that he was complaining about an absent prescription. Mr C said that within hours of his second call he was admitted to intensive care due to the onset of starvation and while there, suffered an unknown cardiac event. Although the first doctor who saw Mr C said that he should be admitted, Mr C said that the second said that he could be discharged. Mr C said that this was unreasonable and likely to cost him his life.

Mr C complained to us that staff at the out-of-hours centre failed to provide him with appropriate medical treatment as did staff in the emergency department. He also complained that he was inappropriately discharged from hospital.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. As part of our investigation, we considered the relevant records and obtained independent advice on the circumstances about which he complained. This confirmed that Mr C was at all times treated appropriately. We found that he had not been admitted to intensive care nor had he been determined to have been suffering from starvation or an unknown heart event. He had been appropriately discharged.

Summary

After she was diagnosed with osteoarthritis (the most common form of arthritis), Mrs C had hip replacement surgery. She went back to see the surgeon because she had pain in her hip. He thought that her symptoms suggested trochanteric bursitis (a condition that causes pain over the outside of the upper thigh, usually due to inflammation or injury to some of the tissues that lie over the top of the thighbone). He injected the tender area with a local anaesthetic and steroid on a number of occasions and arranged for her to attend physiotherapy.

When the problems persisted, Mrs C was referred to another surgeon. He said that the pre-operative x-ray showed minimal osteoarthritic change, and thought that the diagnosis of trochanteric bursitis was improbable. He said that the pain might be related to infection or mechanical loosening and organised a bone scan and then an MRI scan, although these did not show any abnormality. The surgeon decided that there were some problems with the hip replacement and that there was enough evidence to support replacing it with a different type. He then carried out this operation.

Mrs C complained to us that the board had failed to carry out appropriate hip replacement surgery in the first operation. After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, however, our investigation found that it was reasonable and appropriate to carry out a total hip replacement and that the surgery was carried out to a reasonable standard. Although the first operation failed to achieve the aim of the surgery, which was pain relief, the operation note was clear and did not indicate any problems. A small number of patients have significant pain following hip replacement and we were unable to say what had caused Mrs C's pain. There were no identifiable technical errors and we found that the initial surgery was carried out to an acceptable standard.

Summary

Mr C, who has type 1 diabetes, complained that he was not offered a meal over a period of several hours while waiting to leave hospital. He did say that a nurse had offered him something, which he had declined. The board said that the staff nurse recalled a nurse offering food three times, although Mr C said this was not true. Our investigation found that Mr C had been in hospital overnight in relation to a condition other than his diabetes, and nursing staff were satisfied he knew how to manage the diabetes himself. He was administering his insulin himself while in the hospital. This meant that his food intake did not need to be recorded, which also meant we were unable to establish whether he was offered something to eat at a suitable time. There were, therefore, no grounds to uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the patient discharge sheet referred to him as female. When he complained to the board, they apologised, explained that this had been human error and told him what action they were taking to help prevent a recurrence. We also noted that the writer of the discharge sheet had referred to Mr C as 'Mr' on the following line, which was an indication that the gender error had been a human error, rather than a deliberate attempt to humiliate Mr C. We also considered the board's explanations and actions were reasonable.

Mr C was also unhappy with the board's complaints handling, which he said took too long and did not address the issues. We found that the board had taken the complaint seriously, investigated the various issues robustly and tried hard to respond to the key issues raised and many of Mr C's other points. There were delays, but we also noted that the NHS complaints procedure only gives timescale guidelines in respect of the first complaint reply, not in respect of follow-up correspondence, such as Mr C's follow-up letter. We took the view that the board should have kept in contact with Mr C about the delays but did not consider it would be proportionate to make any recommendation for action by the board as, on balance, their complaints handling was generally good.

Summary

Mrs C complained about her late husband (Mr C)'s care and treatment by the board. She said there was an avoidable delay in the diagnosis of Mr C's cancer and that following chemotherapy in March 2012, it was unreasonable to have scheduled a follow-up CT scan (a special scan using a computer to produce an image of the body) for six months later – Mrs C thought it should have been sooner.

We obtained independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers, a consultant clinical oncologist (a specialist in treating patients who have cancer). The adviser explained that Mr C had a rare aggressive duodenal (in the first part of the small intestine) cancer which the board promptly diagnosed and treated by surgery and chemotherapy. He said the clinical care and treatment Mr C received was both appropriate and to a high standard.

The adviser said there was no evidence in Mr C’s medical notes that the board told Mr and Mrs C when the next CT scan would be carried out. A letter from the board to Mr C’s GP said only that Mr C had a further appointment for three months’ time. According to the board, they planned to carry out a further scan in September 2012, six months after the completion of chemotherapy. Therefore, while it appeared that the board planned to carry out a further scan at a future date, we were unable, due to the conflicting evidence, to reach a definite conclusion on what the board told Mr and Mrs C about the time frame. However, our adviser explained that CT scans are usually only carried out if a patient has symptoms that suggest the cancer may have come back, and this was not the situation when Mr C was seen in March 2012. Therefore, the board’s apparent plan to carry out a further CT scan was, according to the adviser, above standard care and would not, irrespective of the timescale, be deemed unreasonable. We accepted the adviser’s view, and did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream took two years to set up an account for his business. He also complained that he believed that he had been charged for water used by the previous occupants.

Our investigation found that the responsibility for informing Business Stream lay with Mr C. Although there was a delay between the first meter reading and the opening of the account this was a matter of months, and Mr C had in fact traded for two years without informing Business Stream that the premises were occupied. Business Stream have now restructured their organisation and have a dedicated team to ensure new accounts are set up in a timely fashion. This action addressed the failing identified and we did not uphold this complaint. We also found that, although Business Stream's letter was unclear, Mr C had not been charged for water he had not used.

Summary

Mr C complained that the television set in his prison cell had not been working properly for several months, despite the fact that he had to pay a fee each week for its use. We established that the Scottish Prison Service had taken reasonable action in respect of this and we were satisfied with their decision not to refund the money. This was on the basis that such monies from prisoners were not only for access to television channels but also for set rental, television licence fees and repair and maintenance.