Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take action against a neighbour who had applied for planning permission for a house in a field beside Mr C's home. Mr C was concerned that the applicant described the land in an earlier application for planning permission in principle as 'agricultural' and in a recent application for approval of detailed permission as 'paddock'. Mr C was of the view that the applicant was untruthful on his application and land ownership certification. He also complained that the council did not refer the application to the appropriate committee and so it was decided by the head of planning under delegated powers.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We reviewed the council's actions and determined that, although the land was described in two different ways, certification about agricultural use was not required as this was not a tenanted piece of land. In addition, as it was within the settlement boundary and not in open countryside, the use of land was not relevant to the application. In terms of the council's decision not to require the application to be considered at committee, their standing orders require this to be done where more than five objections are received to a planning application. However, they treat separate objections coming from the same household as one objection, which they are entitled to do. In this case as five objections were received from three households, we were of the view that the council's interpretation of this as a total of three objections was reasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council employee, is also a council tenant living in a property that was 'tied' to his employment. He complained that the process followed by the council, prior to increasing the rent on what were formerly tied properties, did not comply with their responsibilities in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (the Act). In addition, he complained that the council failed to obtain written agreement, between landlord and tenant, before varying the terms of the tenancy, again, in breach of the Act.

When we examined the complaints it because clear that both parties had different interpretations of the Act and that to reach a clear view, a decision would need to be made on which interpretation was correct. As this can only be determined by the courts, we were unable to uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) who is a tenant of a housing partnership. The flat above Ms A has been let to a charity which houses young people who have been in trouble with the police or who need help with problems. Mr C said the housing partnership did not discuss this with Ms A or her neighbours, and that she has been bombarded by noise, parties and, on one occasion, water coming through her ceiling.

We did not uphold the complaint. Our investigation found that the partnership had followed their own policies and procedures and allocated the property to the charity appropriately. We also found that Ms A had not initially reported any instances of antisocial behaviour and that the partnership had advised her that if she did so, they would take the appropriate action.

Summary

Mr C said that the fence between his and his elderly neighbour's garden blew down during the storms of January 2012. In June 2012 he noticed that other tenants whose fences had blown down at the same time were having these repaired. On making enquiries he said he was told his fence was not going to be repaired at that time. He was unhappy about this and made a formal complaint. Mr C was not happy that he had been assessed as being a priority two for the work, and only tenants assessed as priority one were having their fences repaired at that time. He said he felt discriminated against because the association were repairing fences for other tenants and he considered that the fact he shared his fence with an elderly neighbour meant that it should have been classed as priority one.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that Mr C's fence was inspected when it was damaged. A works order was immediately raised to remove the damaged fence and gate, as they were a danger to the public, and this was done a week later. The replacement of his fence was, therefore, assessed as being a priority two, as, although the fence was removed for safety reasons, it was decided that renewal would be part of a future fencing programme. At that time, only priority one work was being undertaken. We were satisfied that the association assessed Mr C's priority for the repairs to be undertaken according to their criteria. However, during our consideration of Mr C's complaint the association undertook a review of the type of work they are able to undertake within their repairs service and decided to suspend the renewal of fences until further notice.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the board that hospital staff failed to clearly explain to her late father (Mr A) or members of his family, the seriousness of his condition and that he had pancreatic cancer. The family only found out when they opened a letter which was intended for Mr A's GP.

We did not uphold this complaint. Our investigation found that there was evidence in the clinical records that staff had explained to Mr A on many occasions that there was a possibility that he had cancer. Mr A had, however, told staff that he did not wish any of his family members to be present when he received the results of investigations and said that he would tell them himself.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the care and treatment given to her young son (Master A) by his medical practice was inadequate. Master A had become increasingly unwell over the Christmas holiday period of 2011/12. He was eventually seen at hospital, but Mrs C complained that GPs in the medical practice had failed to diagnose her son properly and that it was largely due to luck that the second GP he saw referred him to hospital.

We investigated the complaint and took all the relevant documentation into account. We obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers and reviewed Master A's clinical notes. We did not, however, uphold the complaint. The advice received was that the progression of Master A's illness had been slow and insidious. However, in the face of his presenting symptoms, his care and treatment had been satisfactory and appropriate.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment given to her son (Master A) by out-of-hours GPs. Master A became increasingly unwell over the Christmas holiday period of 2011/12. He was twice seen by out-of-hours GPs in hospital but Mrs C said that he was not diagnosed properly or quickly enough, as a consequence of which he became severely ill. She also said that the board failed to properly deal with her complaint about this.

We investigated the complaint and took all the relevant documentation into account. We obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers and reviewed Master A's clinical notes. We did not, however, uphold the complaint. Our adviser said that Master A's situation was a rare one and that most children with his symptoms would have recovered without hospital intervention. However, both out-of-hours doctors had responded appropriately and treated him satisfactorily.

Summary

Mr C complained that an optometrist used incorrect optical notes when undertaking his consultation and did not realise his mistake until Mr C pointed it out to him. The optometrist explained that he picks up the optical records for the next patient in the queue before entering the waiting room and calling their name. He said he followed the standard process on this occasion. He explained that it became clear during the consultation that Mr C's optical history and examination results did not correspond with the optical records he held. He then checked the name and established from Mr C that he was not the patient called. He explained that he called for a different patient in the waiting room but Mr C came forward.

Our investigation found that Mr C suffered no ill effects from this consultation. In addition, there were no witnesses to the consultation itself and we did not consider it proportionate to try and trace other patients who were in the waiting room and who may have witnessed the optometrist calling for the appointment. As we could not reasonably obtain sufficient evidence to allow us to reach a clear conclusion on what happened that day, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

A nurse working for the board's child and adolescent mental health services wrote to the local social work department about Ms C's teenage son, who lived in a children's home. Ms C considered the letter to be one-sided and unfair, and said that the nurse should not have written an assessment of her son without having met him.

Our investigation found that the nurse had been asked to assess Ms C's son. She had written the letter at the request of the social work department, and it was intended solely to represent the views that the nurse had obtained in discussion with the manager of the children's home. The discussion with the manager had been the starting point of the assessment that the nurse was asked to make, and he had also arranged to have two meetings with Ms C's son as part of his detailed assessment. We were satisfied that the letter was accurately based on the nurse's clinical record of his discussion with the manager, that it accurately explained the purpose of the letter and the context of the information in it and that it was appropriate for such a letter to be written.

Summary

Mr C’s wife (Mrs C) was diagnosed with breast cancer in June 2009. In early 2010, she developed problems going to the toilet. Mr C said this became an ongoing problem that caused his wife extreme pain and discomfort. Mrs C’s GP referred her to hospital for x-rays of her spine and pelvis which were carried out in July 2010 and showed no significant abnormality. In view of Mrs C’s history of breast cancer, the radiologist recommended a bone scan which was performed in August 2010. Although the bone scan findings noted ‘increased uptake’ (an abnormality) in both sacro-iliac joints (joints in the lower back next to the pelvic region), the opinion was that this could be due to mechanical reasons in the joints, as Mrs C had undergone hip operations 15 years previously.

Mrs C's GP then referred her to a different hospital for further investigation as she was having difficulty walking. An MRI scan (a diagnostic procedure used to provide three-dimensional images of internal body structures) was carried out in September 2010 which identified extensive cancer and Mrs C passed away in April 2011. Mr C complained to the board that he felt that something might have been missed on his wife’s x-ray and that she should have been diagnosed earlier, sparing her a lot of pain, and possibly prolonging her life.

After taking advice from two of our medical advisers, including a cancer specialist, we found that reasonable investigations were carried out after Mrs C's GP referred her for further investigation. There was no clear evidence of cancer from the earlier blood tests, x-rays and bone scans. We also found that the description given and findings reached on the x-rays and bone scan were accurate and that only two weeks had passed between the bone scan and the MRI scan being undertaken. We could not, therefore, conclude that there had been a delay in Mrs C being diagnosed.