Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C went to her dental practice to have a tooth removed and a neighbouring tooth filled. She returned to the practice several weeks later complaining of toothache and saw another dentist. Mrs C decided to have the problematic tooth extracted. Mrs C said that before the extraction she clearly told the dentist that her toothache was originating from the tooth that had recently been filled. Shortly after the extraction, she returned to the dentist complaining that he had removed the wrong tooth. The dentist said he had tapped on both neighbouring teeth several times to find out which tooth was causing Mrs C pain, and that she several times identified the one he extracted as the problematic tooth. Mrs C did not recall the dentist tapping her teeth but even if he did, she said that she did not know if she could have said which tooth was causing pain when tapped, given the recent extraction and that she had painful toothache in the same area. Mrs C later had the problematic tooth extracted and remains very distressed at the effect of the three adjacent missing teeth.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that the dentist carried out an appropriate examination, which led him to a reasonable diagnosis, and that the extraction of the tooth was reasonable. We also found it reasonable that that the dentist failed to apologise for the extraction.

When this report was first published on 24 October 2012, it was incorrectly categorised as being about Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board.  This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 31 October 2012, and for which we apologise.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of Miss A who had a blood condition that caused her to have two deep vein thromboses (DVTs - a blood clot in a deep vein). She was required to regularly attend an anticoagulation clinic so that her International Normalised Ratio (INR – a test used to determine the likelihood of the blood clotting) levels could be monitored and managed. Ms C complained that the board failed to maintain effective control of Miss A's INR levels and failed to offer her alternative medications that might improve her quality of life.

We found that Miss A's target INR levels were increased in 2006 following her second DVT. We accepted independent advice from our medical adviser that this would normally only happen if a patient had a thrombosis (blood clot) whilst their target INR level was at a lower range. This was not the case for Miss A. However, the consultant who decided to increase the target INR level had retired and there was insufficient evidence available for us to rule out a legitimate clinical reason for increasing the target level. Alternative medications are available for patients who are at risk of thromboses or haematomas (bleeding into the tissue around the veins). However, we found that this medication carried a greater risk to the patient than the warfarin that Miss A had been prescribed.

Summary

Ms C complained about treatment received after she fractured her wrist. She said that nurses within the hospital's plaster room had incorrectly applied a cast on two dates in January 2011.

She complained in particular that on one visit, the treatment was inappropriate and resulted in permanent damage to her hand and wrist. However, we found no evidence that the treatment was unreasonable – reviews of the positioning of the casts during the board's investigation had established they had been positioned appropriately, and after taking advice from our medical adviser, we accepted this. There was also no evidence Ms C had sustained permanent damage because of the positioning or fitting of the casts. We did not uphold any of her complaints.

Ms C also complained that following her review appointment she had received inappropriate advice from a registrar that she had suffered permanent damage to her wrist, had lost the use of three fingers, and would require obtaining the services of a carer. We found no evidence that this advice had been given, and the written records reflected that she had been given different information.

We also found that the board's investigation into Ms C's complaints was thorough and reasonable, with all issues raised addressed. We noted Ms C had been in frequent communication with the board via letter, email and telephone, and the board had acknowledged all correspondence. We found that the board had generally addressed follow-up queries well, although Ms C had frequently requested two particular members of staff be removed from the investigation, and the board had not addressed this concern. Although we found it was reasonable for the board to maintain those staff members' involvement in the investigation, we found the board could have clearly told Ms C about this decision, and drew this to their attention.

Summary

The water on Ms C's estate was turned off for essential works by Scottish Water. When the water was turned on again, Ms C said that it burst a pipe under her bath and flooded her house. She paid an insurance excess of £200 to have the damage repaired, and was concerned that this could increase her insurance premium in future. Ms C was advised by her plumber that the damage could have been due to a pressure surge caused by Scottish Water turning the water back on too quickly. Ms C made a claim and a complaint to Scottish Water but was unhappy with their response and complained to us.

Our investigation identified that Ms C lives in an area where water pressure is managed. This management means that water pressure is not able to rise above a certain level. We checked that level against Scottish Water's standards and noted measurements taken at the time, and found that it was in line with these. It was, therefore, unlikely that the burst pipe could have happened because of a surge in water pressure. When we looked at the handling of Ms C's claim and complaint, we found that Scottish Water had had responded in line with their policy.

Summary

Mr C's car struck a large pothole. This caused damage to his car tyre, which had only recently been fitted. It needed replaced. When he telephoned the council to advise them of the road condition they said they already knew about the pothole and would send him a claim form which he completed and returned to them. They then told him, however, that the damage was due to a burst water main, and that they had passed his claim to Scottish Water. However, Scottish Water said that this had been an unforeseen incident outwith their control. They turned down his claim as they said it was not their responsibility, as they had not been told about the problem until the following day.

Mr C considered this unreasonable as the council had the information earlier. He also thought that Scottish Water should have monitored their network and become aware of the problem earlier. Our investigation showed, however, that the fault was indeed not reported to Scottish Water until the next day, and that in terms of their regulatory agreement, Scottish Water were under no obligation to monitor their mains water network. We found that they had handled the matter in line with their normal procedures.

Summary

A water main runs through Mr C's garden but does not supply water to his house. In May 2011 he discovered that the water main had burst and water had flooded under his house. Mr C was concerned that this might have damaged his property's foundations and wanted Scottish Water to arrange a structural survey of his foundations to check for damage and to meet the costs of the survey and any subsequent repairs. He also asked them to re-site the water main away from his property.

Scottish Water told Mr C that they would meet the cost of the survey and any repairs if it could be established that the leak had caused damage. They took the view that it was unlikely that the foundations would have been damaged and there was no evidence to suggest that they were. As such, they said it would be up to Mr C to arrange a survey, and if this showed damage Scottish Water would refer the matter to their insurers. Mr C did not find this reasonable as he said he would not have needed to do this had the pipe not leaked. Scottish Water also declined to relocate the pipe, as it was in good condition and there was no refurbishment plan for Mr C's area.

On the advice of our adviser on water matters, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to ask for evidence that damage had occurred before involving their insurers. There was no specific requirement for a structural survey to prove that the foundations were damaged - this had been proposed by Mr C. We did not consider that Scottish Water were obliged to instruct or fund investigations into the extent of any damage before liability was determined. With regard to the relocation of the pipe, we accepted advice that this might benefit from relocation during the next planned refurbishment in the area. However, there was no immediate reason to relocate the pipe and we found the position reached by Scottish Water to be reasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to purchase 3D puzzles.

When Mr C complained to the prison, he said he was unhappy that he could not get puzzles handed in for him by family at visits. The prison said that was not allowed for security reasons. We asked the prison whether Mr C was allowed to purchase puzzles himself. The prison confirmed prisoners could ask to purchase puzzles from the local supplier. We found that Mr C had not made such a request and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably denied the opportunity to apply for early release under the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme because the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) held incorrect information about him. Mr C said that he was incorrectly recalled to custody, but was assured that this would not affect his eligibility for HDC in any future sentence he might serve. However, in serving his current sentence, Mr C said he was told he was not eligible for HDC.

When we investigated Mr C's complaint, the SPS provided information which showed that he was recalled to custody because he was charged with committing an offence whilst on HDC licence. Those charges were dismissed. However, in considering his appeal against the decision to recall him to custody, the Parole Board for Scotland - who were responsible for considering the appeal - dismissed it because Mr C had failed to fully comply with the terms of his release. They noted that, without prejudging the outcome of any court proceedings, Mr C failed to fully comply with his licence conditions as he had failed to answer the phone several times during his curfew. The Parole Board, therefore, decided that Mr C's recall to custody was appropriate. This meant Mr C was no longer eligible for HDC when serving any future sentence.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The evidence available confirmed that whilst the charges against Mr C were dismissed, the Parole Board decided that his recall to custody was appropriate. This meant the information held by the SPS was appropriate.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was refused progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) to open conditions because he was involved in outstanding civil court proceedings. He complained that it was unreasonable for the prison to delay his progression on this basis.

We obtained further information from the prison and were satisfied that this was a relevant risk factor that they were entitled to take into account. We noted that they explained their reasons to Mr C and undertook to review him again when the court proceedings were over. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour programmes. He said that this would have a negative impact on his progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions).

When we investigated the complaint, we found that there had been some confusion in the SPS’s responses to Mr C as to whether he would have to complete a behavioural programme for which he had previously been assessed. The SPS confirmed that Mr C would have to complete the programme and could do so the following year. They also said that he would be assessed for other programmes this year to allow him to complete any work before the earliest date on which he could progress. The SPS said, however, that they would first have to assess other prisoners who were due to progress before Mr C. We took the view that this was reasonable in the circumstances and we did not uphold the complaint.