Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the council dealt with a retrospective planning application for work that she had carried out in her garden. In particular, she was concerned that the council alleged that trees had been felled without authorisation, destabilising the bank. She was concerned that these comments had affected her planning application and raised public feeling against her application.

We found that the council had only noted one instance of unauthorised felling, the previous year, and had discussed this with Mrs C at the time, when she had agreed to replanting. We found that it was reasonable for them to mention this in the planning report and that information later passed to a councillor, which Mrs C had complained about, was also simply noting the landscape officer's observations. As we took the view that the council had reported the matter accurately, and as the landscape officer's observations were reasonable, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C had a blue badge for disability parking for a number of years but when he applied to the council in 2010 to renew it, his application was refused. Mr C said that this was despite his condition worsening. He re-applied in 2012, following surgery, and was granted a blue badge. He believed that the council did not handle his earlier application properly, and misinformed him when they said that it was successful in 2012 because of a change in legislation. Mr C also said that his GP did not have full information on which to make an assessment, and believed that there were flaws in the council's review process that resulted in his appeal being unreasonably declined.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that changes in the regulations from 1 January 2012 did clarify the health grounds on which a local authority can exercise discretion to award a blue badge, where this is not automatically awarded (if an applicant is in receipt of certain benefits). There was no evidence to suggest fault in the way the council considered Mr C’s 2010 application. Mr C’s GP had the opportunity to comment on his application and the council’s records confirmed that it was assessed in accordance with their procedures. The information that Mr C’s GP had provided was not copied to him, but it is not the council's practice to do this, and Mr C had not asked for a copy.

Mr C had suggested that an appeal process should bring the parties together to discuss the application, and this would have identified that his GP’s records were not up-to-date. However, it was evident that the review of the decision to refuse Mr C’s application was conducted in accordance with the procedures in place at the time.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of concerns relating to the council's decision to allow their contractors to use an area of grass at the end of his street for storage of materials which related to the work they were carrying out. Mr C was dissatisfied that the site was regularly used by the council and complained that they did not consider other sites.

During our investigation the council explained why this site had been used and that other sites had been considered but had been unsuitable. The council also provided evidence that they had addressed the issue of health and safety during contacting and while the work was going on and had taken reasonable action to address any issues raised while the site was being used by the contractor. The council had also provided evidence of the action they had taken action to ensure that the site was secure. We found no evidence of maladministration in relation to the council's handling of the issues raised by Mr C.

Summary

Mr C is a resident of one of nearly 1500 sheltered housing units under council management. He was unhappy with the actions of the council and their agents during a consultation process for a review of sheltered housing provision. He said that the council unreasonably: convened the original consultation meetings in a limited number of centres, to which residents had to travel by bus; failed to engage a suitably qualified company to undertake a programme of research into sheltered housing provision; failed to tell family members about the consultation and the meetings arranged by the council; failed to invite relevant local councillors to the meetings; failed to make adequate arrangements in the meetings with sheltered housing residents; ignored the views of the majority of the residents; and refused to make tape recordings of the meetings available as promised.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that: the original meetings were not for the purpose of obtaining all tenants' views, which were individually canvassed by questionnaire; the performance of the agents was essentially a contractual matter; it would have been unreasonable to have expected the council to widen the consultation to residents' families or to invite councillors. We also found that the council accepted that arrangements for meetings at individual complexes were not ideal, but that their decision had considered this and balanced it with the convenience of holding such meetings. There had been opposition to the changes from residents but this had been referred to and not ignored in the reporting of the consultation. We did not find that there had been a promise to tape meetings to play to those unable to attend.

Summary

Mr C is a council tenant. He complained about an invoice that the council sent him in respect of a repair to an outside tap. He said that the tap was damaged by the council’s contractors when doing modernisation work to his house, and he had reported the damage several times via the council’s online complaints service but they had failed to respond. The tap then fell off when his son brushed against it and he contacted the council for assistance when he could not turn the water off. As the tap had originally been damaged by the contractors, however, he considered it unreasonable that the council sent him the bill for this repair.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. During our investigation we found no evidence that he had reported the damage any earlier. We also listened to a recording of a telephone conversation, in which he reported that his son had damaged the tap and agreed to pay the bill.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the housing association about cleaning and repairs. He was unhappy with the way the association then dealt with his appeal to their appeals panel. He said they had not presented all the evidence that he forwarded as part of his complaint, and had allowed a named member of staff, whom he said had blocked his attempts to make his complaint, to remain in the room while the panel were considering his complaint.

We found that Mr C had presented DVDs, containing a large volume of colour photographs and correspondence, which he asked to be given to each of the panel members. The association had produced the photographs in black and white for the panel members but on the day of the panel meeting had made available a ring binder containing the colour photographs. We found that the association had only included relevant correspondence in the pack made up for the panel members, which we considered to be reasonable.

The association's guidance for panel members sets out who will be asked to leave a panel hearing while the matters are discussed, and we found that the named member of staff was entitled to be in attendance.

Summary

Ms C said that she moved into her property in 2007 and early in 2008 reported a water mark on the ceiling in the hall and was told it was from an old leak. Despite reporting every so often that the mark was getting bigger, no action was taken until she reported the matter again in June 2011. An inspection found that there were cracks in her neighbour’s chimney, which was determined to be the likely cause of the damp patch. The chimney was eventually taken down in November 2011. The association’s insurers refused to pay Mrs C's redecoration costs as they said there was no evidence that she had told the association about the problem before 2011.

We found no evidence to support Ms C's claim that between 2008 and June 2011 she had reported the mark on the ceiling getting bigger. Because the chimney was communal, and the other owner shared the responsibility of the cost of any work, the association were required to seek the owner's agreement to the repairs. We also noted that the owner initially agreed to arrange for a repair to the chimney, but because they did not do so, the association eventually had to appoint a contractor to demolish the chimney and reinstate the roof.

We were satisfed that the association responded within a reasonable time when Ms C reported the matter. We did not consider the delay to be excessive, taking into consideration that the owner had initially agreed to take the lead on arranging the repair.

Summary

Miss C's medical practice were concerned about her compliance with her medication. They had, therefore, previously decided, with Miss C's agreement, to dispense her medication on a daily basis. However, Miss C requested that this be returned to weekly or monthly prescriptions, and she complained when this request was refused. The practice told us that, as they continued to have safety concerns about Miss C's compliance with her medication, they had decided that daily prescribing would remain in place. Having taken independent advice from our medical adviser, we considered this to be a reasonable decision in the circumstances.

Miss C also complained that her medication was no longer being prescribed to her in tablet form. She was receiving a liquid alternative and did not feel it was working as well for her. Although the practice had advised her that the tablet form was no longer available in this country, Miss C identified a drug company who could still supply this. However, the practice noted that this was imported and unlicensed and, therefore, did not agree to prescribe it. Our medical adviser took the view that this was reasonable and said that doctors are discouraged from prescribing unlicensed medication when licensed alternatives are available. In addition, he noted that the medication was very expensive and he did not consider that it would be prudent for the practice to prescribe overly expensive drugs that were not clinically necessary.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a constituent (Mr A). He complained about the board's decision to refuse funding for Mr A's weight-loss surgery to be carried out by another health board.

Mr A had serious concerns about the care and treatment he received from the board, when he was admitted to hospital previously. As a result, during the past few years, his GP had referred him for treatment, including weight-loss surgery, to a hospital in another health board area. The hospital offered Mr A weight-loss surgery but said that it would have to be funded by his local health board. The local board decided not to approve Mr A's application for funding and instead offered him the weight-loss surgery service that they provided. Mr A, however, believed it would be in his best medical interests for the surgery to be performed outwith his local health board area.

Our investigation found that the board's decision to refuse the funding of Mr A's treatment at another health board was a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take. We cannot look at such a decision unless we find evidence that something went wrong in the way it was taken. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the board followed their procedures and took all relevant factors into account in reaching their decision.

Summary

Mrs C had a history of tiredness and told us that she had a number of medical conditions. She complained that a medical practice, and one GP in particular, provided her with inadequate care and treatment over a seven year period. Specifically, Mrs C said that the GP; refused to investigate her symptoms; claimed to make referrals which turned out not to be the case which, in her view, prevented other doctors from investigating and treating her symptoms; inappropriately offered her cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); and inappropriately prescribed and failed to monitor the use of a beta blocker for her symptoms, which Mrs C said almost led to her death.

Mrs C's letters and the medical records showed that the experiences she described were clearly very difficult and distressing for her. However, the GPs and hospital doctors she was referred to had not been able to medically explain her symptoms or find any abnormalities from their investigations. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Our investigation found that the practice explained to Mrs C how they had treated her. Also, our medical adviser did not find any evidence that Mrs C's GP acted unreasonably when investigating her symptoms, making referrals, offering CBT or prescribing the beta blocker.