Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his planning application. He said that the application had not been handled in accordance with the scheme of delegation which empowered council officers to make decisions. Mr C felt the application should have been determined at officer level rather than referred to a committee of council members.

Our investigation found that the council officer did have the delegated power to make a decision, but was not obliged to do so if he felt that a decision should instead be made by the committee. We found that the council had done nothing wrong in this respect.

Summary

Miss C, an owner-occupier, complained to the police and to the council that a council tenant in the flat below was smoking cannabis or allowing cannabis to be smoked and this was diffusing into the common stair and into her flat. As a result of a police visit, a person in the flat admitted he had been smoking cannabis. Our investigation found that after Miss C complained to the council, a housing officer visited the tenant and gave a verbal and written warning about adhering to their conditions of tenancy. While Miss C complained that the council had failed to take proper action and had failed to answer the specific questions she had raised in her letters of complaint, the evidence we saw did not bear this out.

Summary

When a school was rebuilt, a new glass fronted entrance area and carpark were created opposite Mr C's house. He found that security lights and internal lights shone into his house throughout the night, disrupting his sleep, and he complained to the council. Although it was agreed that timers would be used to ensure that the lights only came on at certain times, Mr C told us that these arrangements were not implemented at first and, when they later were, they were not adhered to. Some of the lights were also controlled by motion sensors, and were set off by animals at all hours of the night. Mr C did not feel that the council took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to his concerns.

We found, however, that the council had taken Mr C's concerns seriously and that they took steps to minimise the impact on him. Initially this involved altering the hours during which the lights operated but, when the problem persisted, the council arranged for a lighting survey to be carried out to establish whether the lights caused a statutory nuisance. The survey concluded that, during normal operation, the light levels were significantly below the required maximum level and after 21:30, the maximum lighting level was lower. The lights could exceed the maximum level after 21:30, but the council were satisfied that, as they would only come on occasionally when triggered by a motion sensor, this was acceptable. We were satisfied that the council had appropriately assessed the situation and had made decisions about the lighting levels and hours of operation taking account of Mr C's concerns and those of school staff.

Summary

Since Mrs C and her family moved into a council flat, she had complained about noise from a neighbour. After one particular incident, she applied for rehousing, supported by her GP and health visitor. A multi-agency case conference considered the circumstances of her request, but decided not to award social housing points that would have given her higher priority for a move. Mrs C continued to complain about noise and other disturbances. She pursued a formal complaint through the council’s complaints procedures, then complained to us that the council had unreasonably failed to take action on her complaints of anti-social behaviour.

Our investigation found that the council had monitored the noise twice, but did not find it to be at levels that constituted a statutory nuisance. An acoustic test found that impact noise insulation levels did not meet current building standards, but as these would have complied at the time the houses were built the council decided to take no action. Mrs C and her husband were made the offer of another property but declined it as unsuitable. We did not uphold Mrs C’s complaint, as our investigation found that the reports of noise had been properly recorded and appropriately investigated.

Summary

Ms C raised her concern about the consultation carried out by the council before they installed street furniture, in particular a bench opposite her home. She said that they unreasonably failed to consult with the appropriate council departments, the community council and residents affected, and that they had misled her when responding to her representations about this. Ms C maintained that there had been no consultation.

During our investigation we found that the council were not required to consult with any groups when deciding to locate street furniture. In this case, however, there had been discussions between relevant council officers and the council also maintained that there was consultation with the community council and further discussions with members of the community council. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's views and did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not allocated the correct number of housing points to his re-housing application. He thought that this had been done deliberately by either ignoring his application, or flagging it in order to obstruct it.

As part of our investigation we reviewed the relevant legislation and the council's housing allocation policy, which is based on the legislation. We found no evidence that Mr C's application was not treated appropriately, equitably and according to the policy. We noted that certain factors that affect housing applications are discretionary (ie they are for the housing provider to decide), such as the condition of the property the applicant is living in when they apply, and whether an applicant has any medical needs, medical conditions or social needs that affect their housing requirements. As these are for the housing provider to decide, it is not for us to say whether the points the council allocated for any or all of these factors were correct in Mr C’s case. We can only investigate whether they had been taken into consideration. We found that, where appropriate in Mr C’s application, these discretionary factors had been considered. On non-discretionary factors, such as overcrowding and size of family, our investigation found that, based on the information supplied by Mr C on his housing application, the council had appropriately allocated points according to their policy.

Summary

Mr C made a large number of complaints against the council in relation to a building in which he owned a flat. The council owned two flats in the building, but were not the majority owner. We determined that most of the complaints related to the obligations of owners under the title deeds, which we could not investigate. We did look at Mr C's concerns that the council had failed to investigate or respond properly to allegations of anti-social behaviour against one of their residents, had failed to enforce parking restrictions outside the property and were allowing a nearby business to use the property's residential wheelie bin, leading to problems with rubbish spilling onto the street.

After investigating the actions taken by the council, including their investigation into Mr C's complaints, we did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had acted in line with their published policies and procedures and there was no evidence that they had failed to take action in response to Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his family over his dissatisfaction with the council’s investigation into a complaint made about an incident at his daughter’s school sports day. His dissatisfaction was based on his belief that it was partial, questioned the veracity of the family’s account, and did not address the key concerns which had been raised.

Our investigation found that Mr C’s complaint had been investigated properly at both stages of the council’s complaints procedure. The council had considered relevant information, including witness statements, and had interviewed Mr C and his wife. The council had concluded that the incident was the result of a misunderstanding, which had been resolved with the apology offered at the time, and took into account that since the event Mr C’s daughter had changed school and was happy with the move.

Summary

Miss C complained that she was misdiagnosed in 2010 with ulcerative colitis (where ulcers form in the large intestine and rectum (the terminal part of the large intestine). She said that when she was offered a surgical procedure in 2012 this was inappropriate as her actual diagnosis was of Crohn's Disease (where the small intestine becomes inflamed, thickened and ulcerated).

Ulcerative colitis is one of a range of conditions known as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Miss C had undergone an emergency ileostomy (where the damaged portion of the small intestine is removed and the remainder directed to an opening created in the stomach wall. The contents of the intestine are then emptied into a collection bag which remains in place for life unless the ileostomy is reversed.) In 2012 she was offered a reversal of the ileostomy as her condition had been stable for some time. After the reversal procedure Miss C experienced an increase in her symptoms and was admitted to hospital four times in the next few months. Her diagnosis was eventually changed to Crohn's Disease and she was advised to have her ileostomy reinstated. Miss C complained that as a result of her misdiagnosis she underwent two major but unnecessary surgical procedures as she had been told that Crohn's sufferers are 'never' offered reversal surgery.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. We found that the original diagnosis of ulcerative colitis given to Miss C was not unreasonable. The adviser said that the conditions have similar symptoms but that Crohn's Disease classically involves the small intestine. In 2010 an internal examination had shown that Miss C had ulcers only in her large intestine.

The adviser also said that the offer of reversal surgery was reasonable, on the basis of the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and in view of her condition being well managed at the time. The adviser also said that even had the original diagnosis been Crohn's Disease, it would still have been a reasonable decision, given Miss C's condition at the time. Some patients can experience an increase in their symptoms and a relapse of their condition following reversal and this is a risk that should be discussed with the patient before surgery is agreed. There was evidence in Miss C's clinical records that this was discussed with her at an out-patient appointment. Therefore, it was reasonable to offer the reversal and the resulting relapse could not be attributed directly to it. The adviser said that all IBD conditions are characterised by unpredictable symptoms and relapses, and made reference to the IBD Standards Working Group who issued national guidance in 2009.

Summary

Miss C's sister (Miss A) was admitted to hospital after a fall at home. Miss A had injured her back in the fall, but her GP noted in his referral letter that her health had been declining for some time. She had a history of alcoholism, a number of medical conditions and had been receiving treatment for infections. Although her condition initially improved, Miss A became lethargic and developed symptoms of liver disease. Her condition deteriorated further and she was transferred to a second hospital in a different board area for specialist treatment. Their records indicate that Miss A had pneumonia and had become increasingly confused. She died two weeks after being admitted to hospital. Miss C complained to us that staff at the first hospital did not appropriately assess and treat the cause of her sister's symptoms.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that Miss A was clearly in very poor health when she was first admitted to hospital. The clinical records showed that her condition was closely monitored and that appropriate investigations were carried out. Although Miss A at first showed signs of improvement she had developed a chest infection, which resulted in her condition deteriorating. We were satisfied that the board took appropriate steps to monitor her symptoms, considered reasonable causes of those symptoms and carried out appropriate diagnostic investigations. We were also satisfied that appropriate treatments were provided and that staff involved specialists from the second hospital at an appropriate stage. We concluded that Miss A's deterioration occurred despite the investigations and treatment provided by the first hospital, rather than as the result of any failure on the part of the board.