Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, suffers from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - a condition that can cause stomach cramps, bloating, diarrhoea and constipation. He told us that he spent a short period of time in one prison, where he received a gluten free diet to help his symptoms. However, when he transferred to the prison where he was to spend the majority of his sentence, he only received a gluten free diet for around three weeks. It was then stopped while the board awaited the results of blood tests. When the results came back, they showed that Mr C was not gluten intolerant, and he was told he would not receive a gluten free diet in future.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we found that the decision not to provide him with a gluten free diet was clinically appropriate. However, we were critical of the board for the apparent inconsistency in approach, as Mr C apparently initially received a gluten free diet, which raised his expectations about what he should receive. We drew this to the board's attention.

Summary

Miss C complained that during treatment a dentist handled her five-year-old daughter (Miss A) with excessive force, and shouted at her. While the dentist was attempting to fill one of Miss A's teeth, she became distressed and moved in the chair. In trying to adjust Miss A's position in the chair, Miss C complained that the dentist handled Miss A roughly, causing bruising to her arm.

The dentist indicated that, as Miss A had slid down the chair, he lifted her under the arms to put her back in the correct position. He said he did not use any force and he could not understand the bruising allegation. He also said that he was required to raise his voice to give instructions to his nurse and be heard over Miss A's crying. He said he did not shout at Miss A. In investigating the complaint, we obtained a statement from the nurse which supported the dentist's position. In the absence of any evidence to support Miss C's version of events, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr A had several consultations at the practice over four months, complaining of ongoing and increasing pain in his hip and knee. Mr A was then admitted to hospital and was diagnosed with lung cancer that had spread to his liver and bones. Mr A died a month after being admitted.

Mr A's wife (Mrs C) complained that if her husband been diagnosed sooner, he could have lived longer and had better pain relief.

As part of our investigation, we took independent advice from a medical adviser. The adviser said that the practice had carried out and arranged for appropriate investigations in an attempt to establish the reasons for Mr A's pain. They arranged chest and hip x-rays at an early stage, but these did not show any signs of cancer. The practice had prescribed stronger pain relief and referred Mr A to an orthopaedic specialist when the pain continued. Although the practice did not re-check a slightly abnormal blood test result within the specified period of a week, the adviser did not consider that the actual delay of ten days was unreasonable. The practice acted promptly when this was identified and we did not consider that the ten day delay would have affected what happened to Mr A. In addition, we could not say whether re-checking this sooner would have resulted in Mr A receiving more adequate pain relief or being admitted to hospital more quickly.

Summary

Mr C complained that by investigating an allegation of gross misconduct against him, the organisation breached their regulations, codes of procedure and general rules, by creating rights beyond their statutory and common law obligations.

We explained to Mr C that our investigation of his complaint could only look at whether policies and procedures were followed and if appropriate advice was taken. We found that the organisation had taken legal advice. We could not compel them to provide this to us, and only a court could determine whether the legal advice was reasonably acted upon. We could not, therefore, determine whether they breached the regulations by investigating allegations against Mr C, and could not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C had worked from home on a part-time basis for a number of years, using a room in his house as a surgery. He complained that Business Stream had written to him saying that an audit had shown that he was occupying a property thought to be vacant and, to continue to receive water and waste services there, he needed to set up an account. As the default provider, they billed Mr C for usage. Mr C complained to us that Business Stream was unreasonably charging him for services to his property, even though they did not provide this. He also said that Business Stream were acting against advice on a government website which said that if a person works from home, any water used would be included in the domestic bill.

Our investigation found that Business Stream had explained to Mr C that they had received information from Scottish Water and the Scottish Assessors' Association that there had been no charge for services since he entered the property, and that the surgery was commercially rated. Acting in line with their dual use property policy and duty under the legislation, and in the absence of any other service provider, they had asked for payment for provision of services. As it was clear that Business Stream was acting in line with their policy, and we could only question this if it had not been applied properly, we found that they acted reasonably in charging for these services. Although we appreciated that Mr C had seen differing website advice about how the water usage would be charged, we did not find that Business Stream could be held responsible for information on another website. They had, however, said that they would take action to ask for this to be corrected, which we found appropriate.

Summary

Mr C owned a retail unit that was occupied by a beautician's business. He complained that the water bills for the business were disproportionately high, and compromised its viability. Mr C asked Business Stream to consider reviewing the water charges, or fitting a smaller water meter. It was agreed that a smaller meter would be appropriate. However, Mr C felt that the price quoted to exchange the meters was too much, and he was not allowed to have his own plumber carry out the work more cheaply.

Business Stream asked Scottish Water to provide a quote for the work. After Mr C disputed the amount quoted, Scottish Water provided details of the work that they said was needed. Mr C disagreed that the work described was necessary, but ultimately the business agreed to proceed with the meter downsize. Once the work was completed, Mr C remained dissatisfied as he believed a simple meter swap had been carried out, rather than the excavation and pipe replacement work detailed by Scottish Water. He provided photographic evidence of the work that had been completed.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as after investigation we were satisfied that it was for Scottish Water, as requested by Business Stream, to decide the work required and what the cost of that work should be. The amount quoted was in line with their published schedule of rates. We recognised that this was a standard charge and may not have reflected the precise cost of the work involved, but did not find it unreasonable for a schedule of standard rates to be used. We asked an independent water industry adviser to review the 'before and after' photographs submitted by Mr C. We accepted his view that there was evidence of excavation work and of the meter chamber being replaced which we considered was in line with the work proposed by Scottish Water.

Summary

Mr C purchased a property in October 2009 which he renovated to create residential and office accommodation. In April 2011, he received a water bill from Business Stream which he found to be disproportionately high. He complained that Business Stream did not explain their terms or their charging structure and that a water account was created for his business without his knowledge. Furthermore, Mr C was unhappy about being issued a water bill backdated to October 2009, when he was not aware of the need to have an account.

We found that the previous occupiers of the premises had a water account with Business Stream but did not tell them when they left the property. Business Stream was first notified of this in March 2011 and promptly contacted Mr C. The requirement to set up a water account with a licensed provider was relatively new in 2009 and we acknowledged that business customers may not have been aware of the need to do so. However, we were satisfied that the responsibility lay with the customer to notify Business Stream when they left or moved into a property. The failure of either occupant to notify Business Stream of the change of ownership meant that the original occupier continued to be charged for water services while Mr C used the water without charge. We did not consider that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to create a new account for Mr C's business any sooner.

We were satisfied that, once Mr C's business account was set up, Business Stream applied legitimate backdated charges and followed the correct procedure for supplying properties with mixed residential and commercial uses.

Summary

In 2012, Mr C received a water bill from Business Stream that was much higher than he had expected. The bill was for the water supply to a trough on his farm which had been switched off since the summer of 2011. The meter for this supply was located in Mr C's neighbour's house, but he did not have access to it. Because of this, he was unable to monitor his water usage and was unaware that there was a leak in his pipework. Mr C complained to us that the bill was too high and that, had his meter been located in a more accessible position, and had accurate bills been issued by Business Stream rather than estimates, he could have identified the leak sooner. He did not consider that he should be liable for the full amount of the water bill.

Mr C's water meter was relocated by Scottish Water on behalf of Business Stream to a more accessible position. After the work was completed, he was presented with an invoice for the relocation work which he found excessive. He was told that if he chose not to pay the invoice, the meter would be moved back to its previous location at no cost.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. It is the customer's responsibility to check for and repair any leaks on their pipework. Where leaks are not immediately visible, the best way to monitor water usage is to examine the water meter and any bills that are issued. We accepted that the location of Mr C's water meter restricted his ability to check for leaks, but did not find evidence of any clear request from Mr C to have his meter moved to a more accessible location. However, we did not find that the delay in moving the meter impacted significantly on the water charges that Mr C incurred.

We were satisfied that meter readings were taken in line with Business Stream's meter reading policy which requires two actual readings to be taken in a twelve month period. As such, we did not find that there was any specific action that Business Stream could have taken to help Mr C identify his leak any sooner.

We found it reasonable for Scottish Water to apply charges for relocating the meter and that these should be met by the customer. However, Mr C should have been told about the cost prior to the work being carried out. Scottish Water accepted this and agreed to leave the meter in its new location without pursuing Mr C for any costs associated with its relocation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prisoners in his part of the prison were treated less favourably than those in another part and that a lack of certain facilities in his part was hindering his progression to less secure prison conditions.

Our investigation found that both parts of the prison were treated in the same way, that the facilities provided were in line with the prison rules and therefore, appropriate, and that what was holding Mr C back from progression was not a lack of facilities but his own ineligibility for it. For example, he had not participated in various necessary courses in prison. We found that the prison acted appropriately in respect of the issues about which Mr C complained.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that, having been considered unsuitable several years previously for two behaviour-related courses in prison, it had now been decided that he should attend them. He considered that this might hold up his progression to more open conditions (ie to less secure prison conditions). He felt that this would not have been a concern had the decision about the need for the courses been taken some years earlier. We explained to him that decisions about participation on courses are for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not this office. Our role was, therefore, solely to consider whether they had followed their normal processes correctly in reaching their decision.

From similar complaints, we were aware that a new assessment process for courses (generic assessment) had been introduced throughout the SPS, and it had been decided that all prisoners should be assessed under this to establish whether any earlier decisions about the need for courses should be changed. The SPS confirmed that this was why, after some years, Mr C's decision had been reviewed and changed. In other words, they had taken action in line with their normal process and there were no grounds for us to uphold the complaint.