Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had written, without her permission, to her GP about a council tax exemption, which had been granted many years previously on the basis of her mental health disorder. Having obtained the opinion of Ms C's GP the council then removed the exemption, generating a large council tax bill. Ms C said that this was unreasonable given that the council knew she was unwell. The council requested repeat information and forms from Ms C before agreeing to reinstate the exemption.

Our investigation found that, although distressing for Ms C, the actions of the council had not been unreasonable. A query over Ms C's entitlement to an exemption had arisen and the council had a right to investigate. Once they were satisfied that Ms C did qualify for the exemption, having reasonably requested further evidence from a different clinician, it was reinstated.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about aspects of their reasoning in deciding to give planning permission for a development on property adjoining her own. After the council responded to her, she complained to us that their responses had unreasonably ignored some of the specific issues she raised. We investigated the complaint, but considered that the council's responses had reasonably provided all of the information or clarification she had requested.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably charged him for a visit to his home about a gas maintenance check. The check on Mr C's home was due, but the council said he had missed the first appointment. Mr C told us that he was at home that day, and that the contractor had not arrived. He said that he received no further correspondence from the council until a contractor’s card was put through his door. He said that the council then attended his property and, although they were granted access by a relative who was there, they ‘capped’ Mr C’s gas and charged an administrative fee. Mr C was unhappy that they had done so.

Our investigation found that the council are required by law to carry out an annual gas safety inspection, and that there are set periods of notice that they need to give tenants about this. There are also steps they can take to gain access if a tenant does not respond. The council had sent three letters to Mr C trying to arrange the inspection, and left two cards at his home when their contractor could not gain access. They had his correct address details on record, had met all the periods of notice they were required to give him about this, and had followed their policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had done nothing wrong and were entitled to charge the administration fee.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said that in June 2012 a building control officer inspected on-going works to their home extension and verbally told them that the walls complied with building regulations. As a result of this they continued construction. At a further inspection in August, however, some of the works that Mr and Mrs C believed had already been inspected were found not to comply with the approved plans and building regulations. Mr and Mrs C complained about this, saying that, had they known about the problem after the earlier visit, they would have stopped construction until it was resolved.

Our investigation found that the June inspection was solely for the purpose of reviewing the build to the open drain and sub-structure of the extension and did not involve the walls. We also noted that the building control officer wrote to Mr and Mrs C's agent immediately after the August inspection to notify them that aspects of the build did not comply with approved plans and building regulations.

It is the developer's responsibility to construct their development in accordance with the approved plans. The inspection process is not designed to control work on site but simply to examine whether a particular stage of the build being inspected is constructed in accordance with building regulations. As responsibility for ensuring that the build was in accordance with the approved plans fell to Mr and Mrs C, and as the June inspection was solely for the purpose of examining the open drain and sub structure, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C is a housing association tenant. The association arranged to treat dampness in the kitchen of her property, and offered her a contribution towards the costs of redecorating the affected area. Mrs C refused this offer, as she considered it insufficient to cover the full redecoration costs. The association explained that the tenant was responsible for redecoration costs, and that it was not their policy to pay the full costs unless they had been negligent in carrying out the works.

As this was the third time in six years that repair works had been carried out on the same area, Mrs C took the view that the association were at fault in not fixing the problem sooner. The association said that each repair job had addressed a different problem and it was only by coincidence that all three were in the same area. Mrs C also felt that the recent works should have been carried out before her new kitchen was installed, and the association accepted that this had been an oversight on their part. However, as this would have meant the repair would have been considered part of routine improvement works, which do not attract any redecoration allowance, they took the view that Mrs C had in fact benefited from the oversight.

Our investigation reviewed all the available evidence, and we were satisfied that the association had given appropriate consideration to the information from their contractors when assessing the nature and quality of works carried out. We found no evidence to suggest that Mrs C had suffered because of any negligence on the part of the association and, as the level of redecoration allowance offered was in accordance with the criteria set out in their policy, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C attended the hospital's accident and emergency department (A&E) during the night, as he was concerned that he might be experiencing a repeat of a chest condition he had had some years previously. After discussion with a nurse, he was shown to a phone and advised to speak to the person at the other end, who turned out to be from the out-of-hours GP service, NHS 24. NHS 24 advised him to return home, and that they would phone him within an hour to assess his condition. Mr C felt that his situation had not been taken seriously and he left. NHS 24 phoned him three times at home, but Mr C felt too distressed to answer their calls. In the morning, he saw his GP, who diagnosed a chest infection.

We explained to Mr C that it is NHS policy that someone should only attend A&E if they have an emergency and that, if they need to see a GP outside their practice's opening hours, they should phone NHS 24. NHS 24 then assess, by phone, whether the patient needs to see a GP and, if so, whether they should travel to the out-of-hours GP, or whether the out-of-hours GP should visit them at home. The papers we received from the board showed that, when Mr C arrived at A&E, the nurse considered whether he did need emergency care and spoke to a doctor, who decided that this was a matter for NHS 24, rather than A&E.

We did not uphold the complaint because the hospital appropriately established that Mr C needed to contact NHS 24, rather than themselves, then helped him contact them. We also noted that the board said that, because of Mr C's complaint, if someone arrived at A&E but needed to contact NHS 24, staff now made the phone call themselves, giving NHS 24 the relevant details. NHS 24 would then phone the patient back. They believed this would improve their service for patients, and we welcomed the board's use of a complaint as an opportunity for learning and improvement.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was an inadequate number of toilet facilities on his ward.

Our investigation found that patients spend only a limited time on the ward. In essence, the ward is used for little more than eating meals and making phone calls. Patients spend most of their waking time in other areas, which have ample toilet facilities. Sleeping areas are separate, and have en-suite toilet facilities. We also established that Mr C was able to move between areas to a reasonable extent. We considered this reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C is unable to cut his own toenails, and complained that the board failed to provide him with an appropriate regular service for this. He explained that delays in having his toenails cut impacted on his mobility and caused him discomfort.

Our independent medical adviser noted that it was reasonable that times between appointments may be affected by staff resource and demand. As Mr C’s complaint was very similar to one that he had made before and the board had already explained the appointment system to him at that time, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that doctors at the practice failed to manage her medication regime appropriately. Ms C was suffering from bi-polar disorder (a condition that affects a person's mood). She was prescribed medication, including lithium (a medicine used to treat mood disorders) and quetiapine (a drug used to treat bi-polar disorder). Her lithium levels were monitored every three months at a special clinic as lithium may interact with other drugs and can cause toxicity (a poisonous effect on the body). She was also monitored by a community psychiatric nurse (CPN) and a consultant psychiatrist every four to six weeks.

On one occasion Ms C went to the practice as she felt she was suffering from toxicity. She saw a locum GP (a doctor in a temporary position at the practice), who did not think that she was but asked her to speak to her CPN to organise a blood test. The CPN told her to go back to the practice, and another doctor did the blood test. The results showed that she was not suffering from toxicity.

After investigating, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We took advice from as independent medical adviser, who said that the evidence in the clinical notes showed that it was unlikely Ms C was suffering from toxicity when she saw the locum GP. Although the adviser was concerned that the locum GP asked Ms C to arrange her own blood tests, she considered this to be a misunderstanding about the resources available. In light of this, although we did not uphold Ms C's complaints, we drew to the practice's attention that the adviser had suggested they might wish to consider placing an alert on the notes of patients prescribed lithium, with information on how to obtain urgent blood tests where there is a suspicion of possible lithium toxicity.

Ms C also complained that the practice would not prescribe her extra quetiapine. She was under the impression that her psychiatrist had increased the dose. Having looked at Ms C's clinical notes and the communication between the psychiatrist and practice, the adviser confirmed that the psychiatrist had not further increased the dosage. Ms C also had helicobacter pylori (h-pylori - a bacterium found in the stomach) and complained that the practice had not adequately treated it. The adviser confirmed that the dose and duration of treatment for h-pylori was appropriate.

Summary

Ms C's daughter (Ms A) suffers from chronic back pain following an accident some years ago. Ms C complained on behalf of her daughter that the medical practice failed to do enough to provide her with appropriate treatment.

As part of our investigation, we took independent advice from a medical adviser. He considered Ms A's medical records, her medical history and the care and treatment provided by the practice. He said that the practice had provided an appropriate level of care and treatment, including tests and treatment options. Although Ms A's pain has not been resolved, the adviser took the view that the practice have taken appropriate steps to try and identify the underlying problem and to provide on-going treatment in order to minimise the pain Ms A is suffering.