Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment that they received in Accident & Emergency (A&E) following an accident. In particular, C was concerned that they were not kept in hospital for at least 24 hours following the accident, that they did not receive emergency surgery and that their x-rays were not looked at properly to identify the full extent of their injuries.

We took independent advice from an emergency medical adviser and a radiology adviser (analyses images of the body). We found that it was appropriate to manage C's injuries conservatively and that there was not a need for emergency surgery, that it was appropriate to discharge C with a plan for follow-up with the orthopaedic (conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) surgeons and that the A&E staff correctly identified C's injuries from the x-rays. We, therefore, did not uphold C's complaint regarding the care received in A&E.

C also complained about the orthopaedic care and treatment that they received. We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a radiology adviser. We found that assessments and examinations carried out by the orthopaedic department were reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold C's complaint in this regard.

Summary

C complained that the council, as the building control and planning authority, failed to take reasonable action to address an alleged non-compliance with building control standards legislation and an ongoing breach of a planning condition in relation to the discharge of wastewater at the development site where they resided. C's own property had been built a number of years previously. An issue arose regarding the discharge of wastewater from new houses which were being built at the development site.

We took independent advice from a building control adviser and a planning adviser. We found that the developer initially planned to connect the properties at the development site to the sewer network and that building warrants were approved based on their proposals in this respect. When it became apparent that the sewer network required upgrading works before the new houses could be connected to it, we considered that the council undertook reasonable steps to ensure that the revised plan of using a septic tank as a temporary measure was acceptable in building standards terms.

We were satisfied that the council sought comments from relevant authorities (Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water), both of whom were satisfied with the proposed temporary solution. We were also satisfied that provisions were made in later building warrant approvals to ensure that the developer took responsibility for decommissioning the temporary system and connecting to the sewer network once the upgrading works were completed.

In relation to C's complaint that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to an ongoing breach of a planning condition attached to the development, we were satisfied that, whilst the council had a range of enforcement powers available to them, it was a matter for their discretion as to whether or not to take formal action, to allow the breach to remain, or to take less formal action with a view to reaching a resolution. We found that the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and both national and local policy, procedures, standards and guidance including the terms of its own planning enforcement charter. We also found that there were currently attempts to resolve the problem which had not yet been exhausted and the council had left open the option for formal enforcement action to be taken if required.

We did not identify evidence of any maladministration on the part of the council in their handling of these matters and, therefore, did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C was in contact with the council in relation to their child's (A) transition from primary to secondary education. A had experienced negative behaviour while at primary school and C had concerns about A's safety as, if they transitioned to the secondary school linked with the primary school, the pupils involved in historic events would be attending the same school. C was in contact with the council about the assessments carried out in relation to A's safety and wellbeing and was seeking further information from the council in order to determine which school A would attend. The council restricted C's contact with them after some of their contact was deemed unacceptable.

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide them with the information requested in order for C to make an informed decision about A's education provision. We found that the council had ensured a wellbeing assessment and risk assessment was carried out for A for the secondary school. C remained of the view that there were issues relating to A attending this school and alternative schools were offered. There was information which C requested which could not be provided and there were reasons for why the council could not provide this. As such we did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the council unreasonably expected C to make a decision about A's education provision without the information requested. While C remained of the view the level of information was insufficient, we found the level of information provided was reasonable in order for C to make an informed decision about A's schooling. It was reasonable for the council to expect C to make a decision based on the information available. We did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide an accurate risk assessment relating to A's attendance at the secondary school. We found that a reasonable risk assessment was carried out which took account of the views of A and A's parents. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C contacted their child's (A) primary school to report concerns about bullying. Two days later an incident occurred between A and other pupils in the school grounds involving a sharp object. C complained to the council about their response to their concerns and the actions they took to safeguard A. Unhappy with their response, C brought their complaint to our office.

We found that the school had discretion to consider what was an appropriate response to allegations of bullying, and the response was in line with policy. We found the actions of the council were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to safeguarding, we found that the council exercised their professional judgement to assess the risks and put measures in place to mitigate those risks. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council's handling of reports of bullying of C's child was unreasonable. The council said that the school had taken C's complaints seriously and acted in line with appropriate guidance and policies. Restorative measures had been taken to attempt to resolve the conflict between the children concerned. The council acknowledged that punitive measure may have been preferred by parents and that their approach may have, therefore, been frustrating. Moreover, the council were limited about the amount of information that could be given to C because of confidentiality issues involving another child.

We found evidence to show that action had been taken in line with the council's stated policy. There was no evidence to show that incidents involving C's child were ongoing and occurring and after consideration, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the council had failed to provide reasonable support to meet their child's (A) educational and emotional needs at school. We noted that the council's procedures regarding their Staged Intervention Framework do not set out specifically what steps will be taken when concerns about a child's learning are reported or what stage of intervention should be applied. The procedures set out the type of support that may be provided. We considered that it would be a discretionary matter for the council regarding the stage of intervention required and the support to provide. We noted that the support that A received appeared to be consistent with the council's procedures.

We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failings regarding the support provided to A. In light of this, we did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C, an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the community mental health services provided to A by the partnership. C complained that the consultant's assessment of A was unreasonable as they only met once during a 45-minute consultation. C also complained that the partnership's decision to withdraw their community psychiatric nurse (CPN) support was unreasonable as they had been finding this support to be beneficial.

The partnership confirmed that they were satisfied that the assessment of A's condition was made by a suitably qualified person and they had adequate information available to them in order to reach their conclusions. They explained that the decision to withdraw CPN support was due to A's poor engagement with the supports offered to them.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist (a doctor specialising in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental ill health conditions). We concluded that the person who assessed A was appropriately qualified to reach their conclusions and the assessment contained sufficient information to support their clinical diagnosis. We also found that the reasons for withdrawn CPN support were reasonable as there was evidence that A was not engaging well with the service. As such, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

C submitted a complaint on behalf of their sibling (A). A was treated by the partnership over a period of approximately 18 months under two separate admissions to hospital. C complained about the treatment provided during that time through a number of complaint submissions.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser about the complaints.

C complained that the partnership failed to provide reasonable treatment to A. We found that the medication prescribed for A was reasonable, adhered to relevant guidance and was reasonably monitored to ensure treatment benefits were balanced with possible side effects. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

C complained that the partnership failed to provide reasonable care to A. We found that while there was a failing in terms of A's contact with their child, overall the care provided to A by the partnership was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

C complained that the partnership failed to use a reasonable level of restraint on A. We found that the use of physical restraint was appropriate and reasonable, was used in accordance with partnership's policies and in accordance with legislation. The adviser considered physical restraint was utilised for the minimum period of time necessary and there were no prolonged periods of restraint. As such, we did not uphold this complaint.

C complained that the partnership unreasonably discharged A after their first admission. We found that the actions taken prior to A's first discharge were reasonable, with the discharge itself well planned and reasonable. They were of the view that risk were identified and the rationale given for discharge balanced the risks with the benefits to A. We considered that the actions taken to mitigate those risks were reasonable. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the partnership unreasonably discharged A after their second admission. We found the partnership's rationale behind discharging was reasonable. We found that communication prior to discharge was also reasonable. Risks were mitigated through supports put in place in the community and A's clinical presentation and the decision to discharge was appropriate, reasonable and made with A's best interest in mind. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

C complained that the partnership failed to reasonably communicate with A's named carer while A was under the partnership's care. We found, based on the records available, that there was evidence of involvement by A's family and their named carer into the management, treatment, progress and discharge. We considered the medical record evidenced reasonable, regular communication with A's named carer and their wider family, which was in line with expected practice. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C held power of attorney (POA) powers for A and complained about the partnership's assessment of the financial contribution they required A to pay towards care at home costs. A received a direct payment from the partnership which helped to pay for a care at home service. A also paid for additional care with personal funds to increase the care received to 24/7. C complained that the financial assessment undertaken was not in accordance with the relevant charging policy and that the partnership failed to take account of the fact that A was paying for a significant amount of their care to ensure they had 24/7 care. The partnership confirmed that they were satisfied that the financial assessments were properly undertaken and the charges applied were in accordance with their charging policy.

C felt that the additional costs A had, by purchasing additional care, should have been taken into account. The relevant guidance only requires the local authority to consider, using their powers to waive charges, if the supported person has difficulty in meeting the approved cost. We found that the partnership had applied the relevant charging appropriately and had explained the rationale for how the financial contribution charged complied with their charging policy. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C provides care to their child (A) who is an adult living in their own tenancy. A has a learning disability, is registered blind, has some hearing loss and has epilepsy. A receives care in their property under Self Directed Support (SDS).

C provides care for A when other carers are not present. This is done around C's full-time work. C receives six weeks of respite provision. C has requested an increase in A's support as they are struggling to provide the extra care A needs in their tenancy.

The partnership proposed that A share their two bedroom home with another service user so they could 'pool' their care packages. Alternatively, A could move to a different tenancy with support already in place. C, who holds welfare power of attorney for A, has declined these options, saying A is more settled and confident living alone in their own tenancy.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. The partnership are obliged to follow the Self Directed Support Act 2013. We found that the parternship had followed that legislation and considered both A's needs and C's needs as a carer. That the available options (sharing accommodation or entering residential care) are not ones C wishes to pursue, does not mean they are unreasonable options in and of themselves. We did not uphold this complaint.