Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C applied for planning permission to install solar panels in the grounds of his property, which was a Grade B listed building. He told us that he had intended to take advantage of the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which paid energy producers for excess electricity that was returned to the national grid. The council approved the planning application, but applied a condition requiring him to dismantle the equipment after ten years. Whilst they advised him that he could reapply after ten years to extend the permission, Mr C was reluctant to proceed on this basis. He asked for the condition to be reviewed by the planning Local Review Body (LRB), noting that the feed-in tariff scheme was intended to run over a 25 year period. The LRB concluded that a 25 year time-limited condition would be more appropriate and granted planning permission on that basis. However, while Mr C was pursuing his appeal with the LRB, the government changed the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme, making his solar panels financially non-viable.

Mr C complained that the council applied a 'catch-all' condition, normally used for wind turbines, to his planned solar panel installation. He also complained that they should have made him aware of the ten year condition at the pre-application stage, as it is applied consistently across all renewable energy developments. Mr C felt that the council should have applied conditions that reflected the terms of the feed-in tariff scheme.

Our investigation confirmed that Mr C had attended a pre-application meeting with the council's planning officer. Whilst the planning officer said that she had told Mr C about the ten year condition, there was no record of this and we were unable to confirm what information, if any, was provided. We found that it would have been good practice for the council to provide details of any standard conditions at the pre-application stage, but noted that there was no statutory obligation for them to do so. We learned that the council have since accepted that they could provide this information and have taken steps to ensure that it is provided in the future.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We considered it reasonable for the council to impose time-limited conditions on applications for renewable energy projects, and were satisfied that any timescale set was at their discretion. We did not find that the feed-in tariff scheme should have been a material consideration (a genuine planning consideration related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) when determining the planning application, but felt that they could have taken into account the financial viability of Mr C's project. However, we considered it reasonable for the council to take a cautious approach in the first instance and for such matters to be addressed at a review stage if necessary. Whilst the timing of the changes to the feed-in tariff scheme were unfortunate, the council would not have been able to predict these and we were satisfied that the planning process operated as it was intended to.

We were also satisfied that it was reasonable of the council to apply their standard ten year condition to solar panel installations, despite evidence that this had been used for wind turbines in the past. We considered the key issue to be the requirement to dismantle any redundant or obsolete equipment, rather than the nature of the equipment itself.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's landlord registration scheme. He said that the council had unreasonably put him on the register after a phone call, when their written guidance clearly says that applications should be made online or by paper application form.

Our investigation found, however, that this was a discretionary decision that the council were entitled to make. We took the view that they acted in good faith for the benefit of Mr C, who might otherwise have been at risk of being reported to the procurator fiscal.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take appropriate action about unauthorised works in a harbour near his home. He maintained that the council had passively watched these works over a period of time, knowing that as responsible planning authority they were legally required to take enforcement action to stop them; that they pretended for several months that they were unaware of their legal rights and their duty to take enforcement action; and that they had jeopardised the outcome of any future application for planning consent for these works by demonstrating disregard for the rights, views and wishes of the people in the town.

When we first received the complaint, a decision about the development was still going through the planning process. Because of this, we told Mr C that it would not be appropriate to investigate at that time. After the council confirmed to us that an application for retrospective planning consent had been granted, we investigated Mr C's complaints but did not uphold them.

We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He noted that the planning background was complex in that parts of the harbour were listed; the harbour was in a conservation area; the harbour authority were a statutory undertaker (ie that they had legal rights to carry out certain developments and works) and claimed that the development was permitted; some of the works were below the high water mark; and claims had been made that because of works undertaken in the past it was not possible to take successful enforcement action. He also pointed out that the council's enforcement powers were discretionary rather than mandatory. We found that the council had opened an enforcement file before Mr C had contacted them. They had also properly liaised with the developer and his agents and had reported to the appropriate committee on four occasions, explaining that they had asked the developer to submit an application for retrospective planning consent. This was later validated. Mr C's complaint also related to deficiencies in the local availability of plans for inspection but we found that the council had taken swift action to remedy the problem.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application to erect a wind turbine near his property. In particular, he disagreed with the council that he did not have a notifiable interest and was dissatisfied that he had not received neighbour notification. He also maintained that the council had ignored relevant guidelines when recommending the development for approval, and that the planning report had contained inaccurate and potentially misleading information.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no fault in the council's handling of the neighbour notification procedures and were satisfied that, in line with those procedures, Mr C did not have a notifiable interest in the proposed development. We also found no evidence that the council had failed to take account of all relevant material considerations (genuine planning considerations related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest) and were satisfied that elected members had full information before reaching a decision on the development.

Summary

In September 2011, the hospital introduced a new clinical model, which set up new hub and cluster units (a central point and areas for activities). Each of the four hubs supports a cluster of three 12-bedded wards, with various therapeutic, physical, creative and social activities taking place in the hub. There is a central unit where more formal therapies and educational activities are held.

Mr C, who is a patient in the hospital, complained that patients were unreasonably pressured to attend activities in the hub area and that alternatives to attending there were limited. Our investigation found that the board had already addressed staff recruitment and training issues and reviewed policies to allow a more flexible use of resources. This had allowed them to keep more wards open while still staffing the hubs, and they confirmed that in the last month Mr C's ward had not been closed. They also pointed out that sometimes they cannot keep all areas open because of staffing and safety issues.

The hospital provided details of Mr C's personal programme of activities. We noted the steps that have been taken to review and improve practices at the hospital. Independent advice received from our medical adviser on a previous similar case was that positive progress had been made. Our adviser also said that staff often have to find a balance between encouraging patients to engage with therapies and activities and making them feel pressurised.

We took the view that it was not unreasonable for patients from one area to move elsewhere when there are short term difficulties. The matter of deciding how patients should spend their time, and where, is one for the board to consider and decide upon and we found no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the process of deciding how to go about this. On the basis of the information provided and the advice previously received from our adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that a GP failed to physically examine her husband (Mr C) during a home visit and wrongly concentrated on his mental health problems. The practice explained that the GP believed that Mr C was depressed and that he required a psychiatric assessment, which she arranged on return to the practice.

Our investigation found that Mr C's medical records showed that the reason for the home visit was for mental health issues rather than a physical examination. Our medical adviser reviewed the records and felt they were appropriate in relation to a visit for mental health issues. We were unable to resolve the difference of opinion between Mrs C and the GP about what was actually said at the visit, but we were satisfied that the GP's actions in making a referral for psychiatric assessment were correct.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter (Miss A) attended a GP appointment with symptoms of depression. She was prescribed Prozac (an anti-depressant medication). Mrs C complained that this treatment was inappropriate. She felt that the GP had not tried to properly establish the cause of her daughter's depression and had unreasonably prescribed medication that could increase the risk of suicide in young people.

However, after taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that the GP's treatment of Miss A was reasonable. A review appointment had been made for a week later. We found that it was appropriate to prescribe such medication for Miss A's symptoms, particularly as the review appointment was in place to assess her reaction to, and mood level, whilst taking the medication.

Summary

Mr C fell and injured his foot while on holiday. Upon returning home, he went to a hospital accident and emergency department (A&E) where his foot was x-rayed. He was told that this showed no problems, but he continued to experience severe pain in the following months. Some six months later, Mr C's GP referred him for further x-rays, which showed that he had a dislocated toe. He was told that, because of the amount of time that had passed, this could not be corrected without surgery. Mr C complained that staff failed to identify the dislocation when reviewing the earlier x-rays.

When investigating Mr C's complaint, the board asked a panel of six consultant radiologists (specialists in analysing images of the body) to review the x-rays. They concluded that the dislocation was not evident on the original x-rays and that Mr C's toe joint must have separated between then and the referral, when the dislocation was obvious. Mr C's consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) also reviewed the x-rays. He concluded that a slight abnormality was evident on the original x-rays, but did not feel that it was reasonable to expect staff to have diagnosed a dislocation from this at the time, as it was only apparent when comparing the image to the March 2012 x-ray.

We took independent advice from two medical advisers. The first, a consultant radiologist, said that the original x-rays showed a subtle but definite abnormality, which should have led to the dislocation being diagnosed, or to further specialist opinion being sought. However, the second adviser, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, disagreed and did not consider that staff could reasonably have been expected to diagnose the dislocation at the earlier time.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found it likely that Mr C's toe had a dislocation when he went to A&E. However, it was clear from the conclusions reached by a number of professional medical personnel that this was not easy to diagnose from the initial x-rays. Although, with the benefit of hindsight and the later x-ray, it was possible to determine that there were abnormalities in the initial x-rays, we considered that the original conclusions reached were reasonable, based on the evidence available at the time.

Summary

Miss C complained that, when she visited her GP as a new patient, he refused to prescribe her Zopiclone (a drug used to treat sleeping problems). She said she had been unable to sleep because she had been in a hypomanic stage (a period of mild over-active, excited behaviour) of her bipolar disorder (a condition that affects a person's mood) for the last two months. From previous use, she said she knew that Zopiclone would help. She told the GP that her former GP and her psychiatrist found this acceptable.

Our investigation found that the GP had been right to be cautious as Zopiclone is a drug that must be prescribed with care. For example, it is a drug that is open to abuse as a so-called street drug. Also, Miss C's medical records had not yet arrived, so the GP's knowledge of her was very limited. He did prescribe alternative medication, so there is no question that she was given nothing to help with her condition. The GP then contacted her former GP and her psychiatrist and, having been reassured by some of the information from them, prescribed the Zopiclone the next day. Our independent medical adviser considered that this was a very reasonable approach and we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that GPs at the practice failed to take appropriate action after he repeatedly went there with back pain. The practice gave him pain relief, and offered physiotherapy. After he was admitted to a hospital accident and emergency department, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI scan - used to diagnose health conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone) was carried out, the result of which suggested an abnormality. On further investigation Mr C was found to be suffering from miliary tuberculosis (a form of bacterial lung infection which has spread to other organs).

We reviewed all Mr C's correspondence and obtained background correspondence and a copy of medical records from the practice. We also took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. He found that the practice's actions had been appropriate. The adviser confirmed the practice had followed guidelines in relation to the management and treatment of Mr C's back pain. He also explained that the diagnosis was rare and it was reasonable that the practice had not diagnosed it.