Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to assist her in finding safe accommodation when she informed them that she was being stalked and harassed by a local man. When Ms C then moved to two different properties through a mutual exchange programme, she raised a further complaint that the council did not properly consider another request to be re-housed due to noisy neighbours and persistent youth disorder outside her home.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that there was insufficient information reported to the council about Ms C's alleged stalker for them to act. The evidence showed that the only records that the council had about this were noted in Ms C's housing application and that they had contacted the local police about these concerns. However, the police had told the council that they had no record of Ms C having reported being stalked. There was also little evidence of Ms C reporting persistent noise by local youths or her neighbours to the council. Therefore, we did not consider that the council acted unreasonably in not awarding Ms C priority housing.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of issues about the handling of a planning application for a development next to her home. She said that the council did not reasonably consider the application and did not reasonably respond to concerns raised during the construction of the development. Ms C also raised concerns about the handling of her representations.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Ms C's complaints. We found that the council had taken account of the 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 complied with their guidelines.

We were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council took into consideration issues about privacy and overlooking, and the representations made by Ms C. We also found that the council had reasonably considered the proposed changes to the planning permission originally granted, had taken appropriate action and had responded to the concerns raised by Ms C. Finally, we were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the council had provided Ms C with reasoned responses to the issues she raised.

Summary

Mrs C said that her husband (Mr C), who had terminal cancer, had fallen from his bed which was in a side room in the hospital, and died later that day. Mrs C felt that staff should have kept a better watch on her husband as he had lain on the floor for some time. She felt that the level of investigation of her complaint was inadequate.

In response to Mrs C's complaint, the board had apologised that the level of observation carried out on Mr C overnight was inadequate, and said that they had reminded staff of their responsibilities. They also explained that Mr C was assessed as at low risk of falling and when he was discovered on the floor he was examined by a doctor and put back to bed. Mr C had been placed in the side room for privacy, and to allow the family flexibility in visiting. Our investigation noted that it was good practice for the board to have placed Mr C in the side room for privacy reasons. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that the board had properly investigated Mrs C's concerns.

Summary

Ms C complained that a medical practice she was registered with failed to properly assess her or her children with regard to their symptoms. Ms C was unhappy with the practice's assessment of her thyroid (a gland in the front inside area of the neck) and matters related to a parasite (an organism that lives on or in the body (host) from which it feeds) that she believed she and her family were suffering from.

We noted that Ms C was registered with the practice for approximately three months and within that period, tests were carried out on both Ms C and her two children. We considered that the practice had carried out reasonable and appropriate investigations and that there was no evidence of parasites.

Summary

Ms C complained that a medical practice she was registered with failed to carry out adequate assessments or arrange appropriate investigations to diagnose the symptoms she presented with. Ms C was mainly concerned that the practice had not monitored her thyroid (a gland in the inside front area of the neck) or recognised the positive impact of a particular drug on her condition.

We noted that Ms C might have received more consistent care had she not seen so many different doctors there over the course of two years. However, we considered that overall the medical practice carried out reasonable investigations and made appropriate specialist referrals in response to Ms C's ongoing symptoms. The practice have since provided evidence to show that their use of locum (temporary) doctors has reduced.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably charged for a temporary lower denture that he was unable to wear because it did not fit. He was unhappy about the appearance of his new upper denture and that his dentist refused to make a new denture without charge. Mr C said that he had told his dentist that he liked the appearance of his old denture, and wanted his new upper denture to look the same.

The dental clinic told us that Mr C needed to have five teeth extracted, and they had advised him that his best clinical option was to have new temporary dentures made. Mr C instead opted to have his existing dentures adapted. We found that, as the dentist had warned that this could result in the denture being a poor fit, Mr C had not been charged unreasonably.

In relation to the appearance of Mr C's new denture we found that dentures are provided by the NHS on the basis of clinical rather than cosmetic need. Mr C told us that he had not taken his glasses to these appointments and had simply assumed that the denture would be similar in appearance to his old one. There was no evidence that Mr C had told his dentist clearly at the relevant appointments that he was totally dissatisfied with the appearance or shape of the upper denture. As there was also no evidence that he had clearly told his dentist that he wanted his new denture to look the same as the old one, we did not uphold this complaint. Nor did we find it unreasonable that Mr C's dentist refused to make a new upper denture without charge. We noted that Mr C has the option of seeing a new dentist for a second opinion.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the treatment he received from his medical practice for problems with his neck. GPs at the practice saw Mr C five times during a five month period. He had reported a number of symptoms, including neck pain. Mr C reported that at one appointment he specifically raised concerns about cancer, but there was no record of this conversation in his medical file. He also reported being able to feel a lump, but none of the GPs who examined him during this period were able to find this until his final appointment. He was then referred for an urgent ultrasound scan (a special scanning technique that uses sound waves to produce internal images of the body), which found a lump that turned out to be cancerous. Mr C had a history of unexplained deep vein thrombosis (blood clots) dating back two to three years. He was concerned that this put him at increased risk of developing cancer, but that his GPs had not taken this into account.

In our investigation we examined Mr C's medical records and evidence from Mr C. We also took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. Our investigation found that, while there was conflicting information about one consultation, no evidence of a neck lump was found before the final consultation. While the GPs should have taken Mr C's history of unexplained deep vein thrombosis into consideration in making a diagnosis, without any evidence of a lump there was no evidence to act on. We also found that the practice had clearly set out the issues that were discussed at each consultation over the five month period, and had passed on an apology from one of the GPs involved.

Summary

Ms C complained that when she attended a physiotherapy appointment, the physiotherapist wrenched her shoulder and caused her great pain. She also complained that the home exercises that were suggested caused her more pain, and that she had not received proper instruction on how to use a pulley.

In investigating the complaint, we could not establish whether the physiotherapist actually wrenched Ms C's shoulder, but we found that it was appropriate for them to move it to assess the level of mobility. After taking independent advice from our medical adviser, we were satisfied that the physiotherapist provided appropriate treatment.

In this case, the board had also accepted that there were difficulties in communication about what a patient should report if home exercises led to an increase in pain, and they had reminded staff of their responsibilities in that regard.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board's community health partnership (CHP) did not follow consultation guidelines for the closure of his local GP practice. Mr C also complained about the standard of numerical data that the CHP used to support the closure, and that the CHP did not provide clinical or financial reasons for the closure. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the guidelines did not go into detail about the aspects of the consultation Mr C was unhappy with, and although Mr C disagreed with the way the consultation was carried out, we found that the CHP had followed available guidelines. These did not require the CHP to provide clinical or financial reasons to patients, and we found that the reasons for the closure had been explained to patients and local consultees. The CHP did not, however, give the proper context for figures quoted in their letters, and we drew their attention to this as communication of data must be clear, given the potentially emotive nature of proposals to close surgeries. However, the data gathered by the CHP was recorded correctly in a summary of patient consultation responses, which was provided to the CHP's management when making their decision on the closure.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the information and care she received from a hospital after being diagnosed with proctitis (inflammation of the lower part of the bowel). Mrs C was unhappy that she was not told about the risks of developing a more severe form of the disease, and said that the hospital had not monitored her in line with the quality care standards for the healthcare of people with inflammatory bowel disease. The board told Mrs C that they considered her care to have been appropriate and said that she had been given appropriate advice when she was referred to hospital by her GP in 2006 and 2008.

During our investigation we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, and established that the quality care standards Mrs C referred to were not in fact put in place until 2009. We considered, however, that the results of her investigations and symptoms suggested that she was provided with appropriate care and treatment. The adviser pointed out that progression of inflammatory bowel disease cannot be predicted or, indeed, prevented and that different interventions would not have prevented Mrs C's condition from worsening. We found evidence to support that Mrs C was given advice about her condition and that an information leaflet explaining the risks had been sent to her.