Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C’s garden was affected by a flood. Three months later there were further problems when sewage started flowing into his back garden. Mr C claimed that the latter incident caused damage to the retaining wall in his back garden. He complained that Scottish Water delayed in identifying the cause of the problem, and that he had been told by an engineer on the job that the problem had arisen because the drainage system was not being maintained. However, when Mr C complained to Scottish Water and submitted a claim for the cost of replacing the damaged wall, his claim was turned down and he was told that the damage was caused by a neighbour’s drainage system (the earlier flood) and he would have to pursue the matter with the owner of the property. Mr C disputed Scottish Water’s advice that the second incident was due to unforeseen circumstances, unrelated to the damage to his wall.

Our investigation confirmed that there had been two separate incidents, and that Scottish Water had investigated and taken action to resolve both. After the second incident they had cleaned and disinfected Mr C’s garden. They had decided that his neighbour’s lawn should be replaced, but that as Mr C’s back garden was rough ground, no offer should be made to turf it. It was confirmed that Mr C had been advised to submit a claim to replace the damaged wall, but that with this advice he was told that this was not to be taken as an acceptance by Scottish Water of liability because the matter had to be investigated. As the evidence suggested that Scottish Water had considered Mr C’s claim, and explained the reasons why it was refused, this came down to a dispute about liability, which is not a matter that we can look into. We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations.

Summary

Mr C complained that a blockage he had experienced in his home's water pipes was Scottish Water's responsibility and that flooding in his kitchen had been caused by flooding in a nearby car park.

Our investigation found, however, that Scottish Water had correctly told Mr C that the blockage was on his side of the pipe system and, therefore, not their responsibility, and also that the flooding could not have been caused by the car park flooding.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had not notified his business of high water consumption after his meter was read. He did not learn of it until he received the bill early the following month.

The reason for the high consumption turned out to be a water leak on his side of the water pipework, and, therefore, his responsibility to repair. Mr C considered that, if Business Stream had notified him promptly, he would have learnt of the leak earlier and could have reduced the consumption by repairing the leak.

Our investigation found that Business Stream's written policy was that they would try to notify customers where usage was significantly higher than usual. In this case, we were satisfied that the consumption was not significantly above previous readings but that, even if it had been, Business Stream's policy did not give any guarantee of notification. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that Business Stream had not acted unreasonably in not notifying Mr C of the reading earlier.

Summary

Mr C, who represents a company, complained that Business Stream had charged the company for trade effluent waste without formal consent. He also said that the charges were based on an unreasonably high daily availability figure which did not reflect the average usage.

We found that consent for the charges had been in place for a number of years. We were satisfied that the charges were based on this and were calculated in line with Business Stream’s charging statement. In the absence of a request by the company to review the consent, there was no requirement for Business Stream to do so.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to remove his access to enhanced personal training (PT). This is a privilege that prisoners are able to access if they behave appropriately, attend work regularly and remain free from drugs. Mr C said the criteria for access to enhanced PT was to remain free from a positive drug test and not to incur any breaches of discipline. Mr C said he had not received either. In addition, prisoners were only allowed to miss one session of enhanced PT in a two week period and only genuine reasons for this were accepted (such as illness, attendance at court or a bereavement).

The prison said that Mr C had been removed from association with other prisoners for a month due to suspected bullying. He had been placed in the segregation unit and was unable to attend enhanced PT. In addition, the prison explained that the behaviour that led to his removal from association was considered to be unacceptable, and because of that, Mr C's access to enhanced PT was removed. The prison also amended the criteria to confirm that prisoners removed from normal circulation would have their access to enhanced PT removed for a period of two months.

It was clear the prison found Mr C's behaviour unacceptable and because of that his access to enhanced PT was removed. Based on the evidence available, we were satisfied that the prison appropriately exercised their discretion in deciding to remove Mr C's access to enhanced PT and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.