Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the condition of the road outside his home. He said there was an unreasonable delay between him making his complaint and repairs to the road being carried out. He also said he was unhappy about the council's response to his subsequent complaint about the standard of the repairs. In addition, Mr C complained that the council did not deal with his complaint in accordance with the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found evidence showing that the council carried out the repairs 12 working days after Mr C complained, and ten working days after the defects were inspected. As the target repair time which the council aim to achieve is 8.5 days, we considered that carrying out the repair 1.5 days outwith the target was not unreasonable. We also obtained evidence which showed that the council inspected the repairs and determined that they were carried out appropriately. The fact that Mr C did not agree with this was not something we could look into as it is not our role to assess the standard of council repairs. As the evidence showed that the council carried out the repairs within a reasonable time and responded appropriately to Mr C's concerns about the standard of the repairs, we did not uphold his complaint.

However, we were concerned that in their response, the council seemed uncertain about the target timescale for repair. Their initial response was silent on this point, they then said the target was 28 working days and finally concluded it was 8.5 working days. We were also concerned that their procedure did not appear to accurately reflect revised target timescales for urgent repairs. In addition, we were concerned that the council did not appear to have taken steps to look into Mr C's complaint that previously reported faults had not been repaired, or were not repaired properly. We accepted that the council are limited in terms of what they can do due to the passage of time, but they should have responded to Mr C on this point. We therefore, brought these matters to their attention.

On the matter of compliance with the council's complaints procedure, the evidence showed that on balance the council dealt with Mr C's complaint in accordance with procedure. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C had a number of complaints about the way the council had handled a planning application for a housing development on a site in her village. We did not uphold any of the complaints.

Ms C said that the council had failed to notify the local community council that the developer had objected to the site's green belt status during the consideration of the new local plan. She said it was unreasonable that this was only drawn to the community council's attention when the developer provided them with proposed plans around three years later. However, we found that there was no obligation on the council to provide notification to community councils about every objection made which was contrary to their position, and that in fact it would be disproportionate to expect them to do so.

Ms C also complained that the council had improperly considered roads issues, in particular that junction spacing and visibility at the entrance to the new development were not within safe standards. We found that the guidelines Ms C had referred to did not have to be adhered to rigidly, and that the roads officers who had assessed the site had properly assessed all relevant factors when reaching a decision about junction spacing and visibility.

Ms C was also concerned that the two storey housing proposed was not in keeping with surrounding houses in the area. However, we found no evidence that the proposals were unreasonable. Ms C had also complained about the calculation of housing density, based on the size of the site but again we found this to be reasonable. Finally, Ms C complained that the council had not adequately ensured that the developers adhered to the planning brief prepared by the council. However, we again found that such documents are prepared as guidance only, and do not need to be adhered to rigidly.

Summary

Mrs C raised concerns about the council's handling of a planning application for an extension to her neighbour's house which was linked to her property. In particular, Mrs C maintained that the council had based their decision on incorrect information by assuming both properties had identical layouts, and had allowed the extension to extend down a shared boundary by more than four metres, which went against the council's local plan guidance note 7.

When we investigated the complaint we asked one of our planning advisers to provide advice on the way in which the council considered the application. In particular, we asked them to consider whether the evidence demonstrated that the council had complied with the local plan guidance note. After taking his advice, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Our adviser was satisfied that the council had considered the relevant material considerations in deciding that the proposal was acceptable when assessed against the provision of the local plan guidance note 7. (A material consideration is 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). While there had been errors in the planning report, these had no material effect on the final decision to grant planning consent. We found no evidence that there were procedural omissions in the handling of the planning application.

Summary

Ms C and her son live in a house owned by the association. After discussions about her son's anti-social behaviour, the association wrote to Ms C saying that she would be re-charged (have to pay for) for damage caused during an incident in 2007 when her son's friend forced the door open.

Because of the amount of money that Ms C owed the association, they served her with notice that they intended to take proceedings to end her tenancy. She then signed a document admitting that she owed £688.88 for repairs and agreed to repay the debt at £5 per week. Over the next three years, Ms C continued to repay the debt, making various arrangements to vary her repayments.

In May 2011, Ms C wrote to the association saying that she was unhappy with the rechargeable repair. She referred to an incident in 2008 when a door was broken, which she believed she was recharged for and which she felt was not her fault. Ms C initially said that her ex-partner had damaged the door and the association asked her to provide a police report detailing what happened. The incident number that she gave was, however, not relevant to the damage that the association had charged her for. Ms C also said that it was actually her son's friend who had kicked the door, not her ex-partner. The association continued to hold Ms C responsible for the cost of the repair.

After Ms C complained, the association's depute director and management committee considered the matter. They took the view that, because of Ms C's varying accounts of the cause of the damage, the fact that she had already had ample opportunity to dispute the charges and had made substantial payments towards the rechargeable repairs, there was no reason to refund the payments she had already paid or to cancel the outstanding balance.

When Ms C complained to us, she told us that she had challenged the charges at the time they were made and had provided crime reference numbers which she believed the association had lost. After careful consideration of the association's files and records, we found no evidence that Ms C was charged for an incident in 2008 or that she had challenged the decision to charge her for the incident in 2007 at any point before May 2011. We considered that the decision not to write off the rechargeable repair was a discretionary one (ie one the association were entitled to take) and that the association had considered Ms C's request in 2011 reasonably, taking into account the relevant factors.

Summary

Mr C said the housing association had not properly investigated his complaint that he was being harassed by his housing officer. He said that he was being harassed because he had questioned why he had been issued with a warning about anti-social behaviour.

We did not uphold his complaint. We found that the housing association had initially delayed in investigating his complaint but had held two meetings with Mr C to allow him to present any evidence in support of it. The minutes of the meetings showed that Mr C did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of harassment.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the time taken by the housing association to carry out a repair to crumbling sandstone on a parapet above her window. She said that sandstone, mortar and lead flashing were falling down in front of her window. Mrs C complained that scaffolding had been erected for 35 days but debris was still coming down, no repair work had been started and she could not access her garden through the french windows.

We found that the association had erected scaffolding to inspect the matter and to find out what repairs were required. Having done so, they instructed specialist structural engineers to carry out a structural survey. On receipt of their report, the association instructed the engineers to prepare drawings and specifications to put the work out to competetive tender. We did not find any delays in the process and noted that the association had kept all tenants, including Mrs C, informed at every stage of the process. We were also satisfied that, for health and safety reasons, the association had temporarily removed access to the garden and had explained this to Mrs C.

Summary

Ms C said that in July 2011 she had reported to the housing association that the kitchen door in her new property was sticking on the floor when being opened or closed. She assumed the door had 'dropped' and said the housing association had told her it was her responsibility to repair it. When it became more difficult to open or close the door in March 2012, she asked for someone to come out to investigate. It was then identifed that, rather than the door being the problem, the floor had swollen. Several visits took place to search for the cause of the floor swelling and Ms C was eventually asked to lift the floor covering completely. When the floor covering was lifted, it cracked and ripped. Ms C said that the maintenance officers could not identify where the leak had originated but the housing association said it was caused by her washing machine. Ms C was unhappy and said that the association delayed in coming to investigate the problem in the first place, wrongly blamed her washing machine for the water leak which caused the floor to swell up, and refused to replace the floor covering.

We found no evidence to suggest that Ms C had raised the matter of the door sticking before February 2012 and that when she did raise it, the housing association acted promptly to identify the cause. The information provided by the housing association showed that the professional opinion of all concerned was that Ms C's old washing machine was the cause of the water leak as the area affected was drying out since the floor covering had been lifted and there was no evidence of a leak at any of the visits made.

Ms C's tenancy agreement states that, where necessary, she must agree to uplift floor coverings where repairs are being carried out. Compensation payments by the association are normally only offered where there is evidence of inaction or negligence in addressing a matter that was the responsibility of the housing association to resolve and we found no evidence of negligence. We were satisfied that the association acted appropriately in advising Ms C to make a claim on her own home insurance.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was given conflicting advice about what happened to his wife (Mrs A) after she had undergone a coronary procedure to address the narrowing of her arteries. Mr C was unhappy that the doctor did not reflect the seriousness of Mrs A's condition in his reports despite him being taken aside and being advised that she had a 50 percent chance of survival.

Mr C was also unhappy that the doctor maintained that there were no changes to Mrs A's electrocardiogram (ECG - a test that measures the electrical activity in the heart), despite Mrs A having very low blood pressure and a low heart rate.

In response to the complaint, the hospital said that the doctor performed a technically difficult procedure which unfortunately was associated with a complication, which was treated effectively by placing a second stent (an artificial tube) to open up the artery. The hospital advised Mr C that he was told at the time that his wife's condition was not stable and that the doctor was of the view that his reports were an accurate reflection of the events that had taken place. They also said that one of the ECGs was normal and a further one carried out the following day showed inflammation which was not felt to be serious.

After taking advice from our medical adviser, we considered that the doctor's discharge summaries sufficiently detailed the seriousness of the complication that had resulted. We also agreed with the hospital's interpretation of the ECG readings and that it was not unreasonable of the doctor to conclude that there were no changes to the first ECG. That said, we were of the view that it appeared that Mrs A had sustained a mild heart attack, but there was insufficient evidence overall to support that Mr C was given conflicting information about his wife's condition.

Summary

Mr C suffers from a number of painful conditions. He takes codeine (a pain relief drug) to manage the pain, but it causes severe constipation. He was prescribed Orlistat (a weight-loss drug) by his GP some years ago to help him reduce and maintain a steady weight. Mr C found that the drug also relieved his constipation. When reviewing Mr C's medication, however, his GP felt that it was no longer appropriate to continue to prescribe this. Mr C was referred several months later to a pain clinic for pain management and to explore alternatives to codeine, and to a dietician about his weight problem. However, he continues to suffer from weight gain and constipation and maintains that the benefits of taking Orlistat outweigh the risks of both that medication and the alternatives. He complained to us that the decision to stop prescribing it was unreasonable.

After taking advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the GP's decision was reasonable as Mr C had not lost weight since early 2009, and the medication is not licensed for use as a laxative. We also found that the decision followed the health board's guidelines on its use.

Summary

Mrs C was diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer in January 2011. She told us that from March 2010 the practice had failed to properly investigate the symptoms she was presenting with, and that she should have been referred to hospital earlier.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We found that the practice's care had been good. Our medical adviser said that, although with hindsight it could be suggested that a significant pattern was emerging, this was not evident at the time. From March until September 2010 Mrs C had presented with a variety of non-specific symptoms including exhaustion, abdominal pain, bloating and vomiting. She had been prescribed HRT (hormone replacement therapy) which had helped with some of her symptoms. However, her abdominal pain continued, and Mrs C was referred for an ultrasound scan. She also attended a hospital accident and emergency unit a couple of days before the scan appointment due to a bout of severe pain. The ultrasound scan results did not prompt further investigation, and Mrs C did not return to the practice until November 2010. At this stage she was displaying trigger symptoms for bowel cancer including weight loss and a change in bowel habit, and was urgently referred for a colonoscopy (examination of the bowel with a camera on a flexible tube) following the results of blood tests.

Although the practice could have arranged for Mrs C to undergo blood tests earlier, we did not find that their care of her had been deficient. We noted that they had carried out a significant event analysis of what had happened, and had identified some learning points for the future.

Mrs C also complained she should have been sent for an earlier colonoscopy, rather than the ultrasound scan. We found, however, that sending her for the ultrasound scan was appropriate, given the symptoms Mrs C was displaying at the time. We also found that the practice acted reasonably after receiving the scan results, although we noted that they missed an opportunity to review Mrs C in person at that stage, and drew this to their attention.