Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a large scale dairy milking facility near his home. He said that the council had dealt with the application in a similar to way to that of a domestic planning application, which he did not consider appropriate given the scale of the facility. He was also of the view that the council had failed to properly assess the impact, in terms of noise, visibility and odour, that the development would have on his property. He also complained that the council did not notify him about the planning application.

Our investigation found that, as his property did not directly border the development, the council were not required to notify him of the application. We also found that they advertised it in the local paper, fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of the planning regulations. The planning department had also consulted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and their own environmental health department before granting consent. We noted that the developer had sought permission for a number of planning applications, each of which was of a scale which would be considered a local development in planning terms. As we found no evidence to suggest that the council had acted outwith their own procedures or legal responsibilities, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C had been a council tenant, but when his tenancy was terminated he was unable to store his belongings. The council had a statutory duty to protect his property as he was considered homeless, so they arranged for this to be packed up and taken into storage. They told him that they would pay the storage costs for him, but he would be liable to repay these when he was able to do so. Mr C was given a new council tenancy some five months later, and the council had the property taken out of storage and delivered to him. They also paid the fees for this, then re-charged all the costs to him. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that they were more than the fees quoted on the agreement, and queried the invoice from the removal firm that delivered the property to him. He had contacted the firm and was quoted a fee of £55 per hour and was told the job would probably only have taken about three hours. The council had charged him £291.50.

Our investigation found that the amounts re-charged to Mr C were the amounts the council had paid on his behalf. The agreement made it clear that the fees quoted were based on using one storage unit, but Mr C's property had taken more space than that. Similarly, the invoice from the removal firm added up to four hours work at the rate quoted to Mr C, plus VAT and insurance. It is not for us to decide if the amount charged by the firm was correct and we considered it reasonable for the council to re-charge Mr C for what they had paid on his behalf. We also noted that the legislation covering such matters allows for re-charging.

Mr C also complained that some of his property was missing. Some was found when Mr C brought this to the council's attention. Some property was damaged and the council had accepted Mr C's estimate of replacement costs and reduced the amount he owed them by this amount. Some items were not found but did not appear on the inventory taken when Mr C's property was packed up. We could not find out what had happened to these, but we did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence to prove that they were lost or stolen while in the safekeeping of the council. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to investigate these matters and had responded appropriately about them.

Summary

Miss C was unhappy that the council had failed to comply with recommendations made by a social work complaints review sub-committee. She said the council should have notified a sheriff that there were errors in a contact and residence report prepared by a social worker, which was submitted to the court. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the sub-committee only made one recommendation and that was for social work to review their processes.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with a planning application in line with the appropriate procedures and to appropriately take his objections into account. He also said that they failed to respond reasonably to his enquiries or deal with his complaint appropriately.

Our investigation found that the council had dealt with the planning application in line with its published scheme of delegation and that the decision was properly made. The report produced by the planning officer dealt appropriately with the objections received and the council had provided two detailed responses to Mr C's complaints. Although there were minor errors in the handling of the complaint, the council had identified and apologised for these, and there was no evidence that they had affected the council's decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a developer, asked the council for pre-application planning advice about a proposed development. The council said that they considered the principle of the proposal acceptable and worthy of support. The letter also said, however, that only when a formal planning application was submitted could a full and thorough assessment of the proposal, including internal and external consultation and opportunity for neighbours and the public to comment.

Mr C submitted a formal application. The council then told him that they had a number of serious concerns about the proposal in relation to overdevelopment, design/ impact on a listed building, parking and other matters. They said that the new buildings on the site demonstrated very poor design both in terms of the buildings themselves and their relationship to the surrounding area. They also said that no listed building consent application had been submitted, despite requests for this. They said that they would be preparing a report recommending that the application be refused. Mr C complained to us that the council had provided unreasonable and contradictory advice about his proposed development between the pre-planning advice stage and his submission of the formal application.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we made some minor criticisms of the pre-planning advice Mr C received from the council. In it, they had referred to the relevant policies, but not in their full terms. They should also have referred to the Fife Urban Design Guide, at least in general terms. That said, we found that these inadequacies, which the council accepted had occurred, were not fundamental flaws. We considered that overall, the pre-application advice was accurate as far as it went and generally satisfactory in its scope. The caveats the council had included in the pre-application advice were both acceptable and normal for this kind of situation. We did not consider that the matters the council raised when processing the application were unreasonable or contradictory to the pre-planning advice.

Summary

Ms C was unhappy when the council granted planning permission for revised access arrangements from a private road. In doing so, they had taken account of part D of the Local Plan policy. They attached a binding condition to the consent - that visibility splays (an area clear of obstruction to allow drivers to see any traffic coming) were to be in place before any houses built could be occupied. Ms C complained that this could not be complied with as the access improvements could not be made because the applicant did not own the road, and it was too narrow. She said that the council were acting in breach of the policy because they did not resist the application.

When investigating this complaint, we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. The council explained that the visibility splays were assessed against current policy and deemed appropriate, and that they considered the private road and access to be suitable for additional vehicular traffic. Council officers use their professional judgement on matters such as these. We noted that in making their decision it was for the council to judge how important each relevant point is. We cannot question a decision they are entitled to take, in the absence of evidence that something has gone wrong in the decision making process. The matter of who owned the road was not relevant to the consideration of the application.

We were satisfied that the council's processing of the application and the manner in which the access issues were considered was in line with procedure, and the council had clearly explained their position. We saw no evidence of procedural or administrative fault in the council's handling of the application.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had not dealt with the problem of smoke/nicotine odour in her flat. Our investigation, however, found that they took her concerns seriously and fully investigated the matter. They had sealed pipes from the flat downstairs and had visited to try to see if they could do more, as well as having an architect look at the layout of the flat, but could not find any source for the odours. We were satisfied that their actions were reasonable and in line with procedures. It was for the association as landlord to decide what work was needed to the property, and we saw no evidence of anything going wrong in their decision making process.

Summary

Mr C sustained head injuries in a road traffic accident. He went to hospital where his wound was dressed and he was advised to take painkillers. He attended his medical practice the following day for a change of dressing. Several days later he saw another GP who arranged for a nurse to rebandage his wound. He said that it was found to be dirty with glass fragments left in it. Mr C complained about the way his GPs managed his wound. He was also concerned about how one of the GPs managed his subsequent headaches and said he should have been referred for further investigation earlier. Finally, Mr C said that the follow-up by nursing staff, rather than his GP, was not reasonable.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. They said that wound management is a nursing responsibility and that the management and follow-up was appropriate for this type of injury. In relation to the glass fragments, the adviser said these were unlikely to have caused complications and would have worked their way to the surface. It was, therefore, reasonable to allow this to happen and to treat Mr C with antibiotics rather than try to remove fragments, which might have damaged the healing process. In relation to how the practice managed Mr C's headaches, the advice was that further investigations and treatment were provided within a reasonable time, although the GP did not record information about one of the consultations. Having said that, we found that the care and treatment provided overall was of a reasonable standard.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her medical practice failed to diagnose the symptoms of kidney damage after surgery. She said that this meant she had to undergo further surgery and led to a permanent loss of kidney function. Mrs C also complained that after the surgery the practice had failed to take adequate follow-up action.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, our investigation found that the practice had acted appropriately on the symptoms Mrs C presented with after her first operation. They had monitored her situation and referred her to a specialist when it was clear that she was not recovering. We also found that the practice acted appropriately and in a timely way in trying to support Mrs C, even though they were not advised of Mrs C's discharge, nor about the specialist type of dressing that she had been fitted with. In the circumstances, we found that the practice had provided her with a reasonable level of care.

Summary

Mrs A was diagnosed a number of years ago with early onset dementia. She was admitted to a specialist psychiatric and mental health unit for assessment because of problems with her sleep pattern. During her stay she fell on the ward, breaking her left thigh, and needed a hip replacement in another hospital. Mrs A returned to the unit nine days later and a further 11 days after this fell again, after another patient pushed her. This time she broke her right hip, which also had to be replaced in the other hospital. Mrs A was discharged from there to a nursing home where she is now living. Her daughter (Miss C) complained that Mrs A was provided with inadequate care and supervision while she was being assessed. Miss C also complained that the board's responses to her complaints was inadequate.

We took independent advice from two of our medical advisers. They noted that at times, Mrs A had been on 'constant observations' (where staff were on hand with her at all times) but at other times she was not. The advisers said that Mrs A's mental health condition, falls risk, medication and physical condition were regularly and appropriately monitored and, where necessary, changes were made. Our investigation found that, although it was obviously very unfortunate that Mrs A sustained two fractures within 20 days, her care and supervision were reasonable and appropriate.

On the matter of the complaint responses, our investigation found that all acknowledgements and responses to Miss C's complaint letters were sent within the local and national target timescales. Full explanations were provided and the board acknowledged that this had been a distressing experience for Mrs A and all her family. The board also apologised that in the first response Miss C had not been made aware of the SPSO process. They had not apologised for what happened to Mrs A and Miss C had been concerned about this. We took the view that as we had found that what had happened was not the fault of the board, it was not unreasonable that they did not apologise for this.