Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C pursued a complaint on behalf of his late mother (Mrs A), who passed away from terminal cancer soon after bringing her complaint to us. Mrs A’s complaint letter to the board said that they had not provided her with regular checks when she had heart problems diagnosed. She said that in her view, this contributed to her cancer remaining undiagnosed until it became terminal.

We took advice on the complaint from one of our medical advisers, a consultant in acute medicine, with specialist experience in heart disease in older people. Our investigation found no evidence of any failure to carry out appropriate or regular checks for Mrs A’s heart problems relative to the recorded symptoms she displayed at any given time.

Summary

Ms C had admitted that she consulted another student's work without referencing it when completing her dissertation. As a result, her dissertation was downgraded. She appealed this decision, saying that her health issues were not taken into account in assessing her work, but the university said that there were no grounds to take these concerns to their appeal panel.

Ms C complained to us that the university failed to adequately take into consideration her health issues when assessing her appeal and had failed to tell her that she could apply for an extension to her dissertation deadline. When we investigated, the university provided us with a number of documents that they make available to students. These included information which says that if there is a health problem, students should tell them at the time of the illness or shortly afterwards, and which explains how to request an extension to coursework deadlines and the grounds on which an extension can be granted. They also explained that, in cases of plagiarism and academic misconduct, motivation is not taken into account. As Ms C had been provided with and had access to information about how to inform the university of health issues and how to request an extension to coursework guidelines, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a student nurse (Miss A). During Miss A's working placements, a number of concerns were raised about her professional conduct, care skills and integrity. Miss A was asked to attend a Fitness to Practice panel hearing (a meeting used to reach a decision about a nurse's fitness to practice). The panel found that Miss A did not meet the required nursing industry standards. As a result of this, Miss A's studies were terminated. Mr C complained that the university denied Miss A the right to an appeal against the decision. He also complained that the university did not take into account relevant evidence submitted in support of her case and did not provide clear information about the format and potential consequences of the panel hearing.

Our investigation found that the university provided Miss A with a copy of their panel procedure before the date of her hearing. This included details of potential recommendations that the panel could make, including terminating a student's studies. We also found that students were told about fitness to practice issues and the panel's involvement through lectures and course documentation.

Although we found that Miss A was not told in advance that the hearing would be conducted via video link, we did not regard this to be unreasonable in the circumstances. Finally, we were satisfied that the university appropriately considered Miss A's further supporting evidence before deciding not to proceed with the appeal. We found that, while the new evidence supported Miss A's position on one of the issues initially presented to the Fitness to Practice panel, the number of remaining issues were still considered significant enough to terminate her studies.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to fully consider his application for home detention curfew (HDC) before reaching a decision. In considering Mr C's application, the prison explained that he had failed to complete six supervised orders imposed by the court from 2006 to 2008. The prison also acknowledged that although this happened four years ago, there were additional concerns about Mr C's alcohol problems that he had not tried to address during his time in prison. Alcohol was an indicator in Mr C's previous offending history.

HDC guidance is available to help staff consider HDC applications from prisoners. It confirms that, if an individual prisoner's assessment indicates a significant risk of re-offending or of failing to comply with curfew conditions while on HDC, then release should not be authorised. In Mr C's case, although he was eligible for HDC, it was clear that the prison had concerns about his risk level around early release. On this basis, the Scottish Prison Service were entitled to refuse Mr C's application. We were satisfied that Mr C's application was properly considered and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to refuse his request to watch a DVD of a family wedding. He said he had been allowed to do this in the past and that the decision was unreasonable.

The prison explained that they were unable to grant Mr C's request because his DVD had not come from the prison's approved supplier. In addition, as the prison were unable to review the content of the DVD for suitability, they said doing so would impact upon staff resources. They also said that it could set a precedent for similar requests from all prisoners.

We noted that the prison refused Mr C's request on the grounds of security and because of the impact upon staff resources. That was a decision the prison were entitled to take. We cannot question a decision the prison are entitled to take unless there is evidence of administrative error. An example of administrative error might be when the prison does not follow the proper process or fails to take account of relevant information prior to reaching a decision.

In Mr C's case, whilst we recognised that he was unhappy with the prison's decision, we were satisfied that it was made properly and that the prison had explained the reason for their decision.

Summary

Ms C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in accessing an offending behaviour programme. She was due to start a programme in December 2011 but was still waiting when she contacted us around three months later.

The Scottish Prison Service told us that Ms C started an offending behaviour programme at the end of April 2012. They explained that she was unable to access the earlier programme due to a conflict with another prisoner on that course. We decided that, in the circumstances, the delay was not unreasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was reported for possessing a mobile telephone. He pled guilty at his disciplinary hearing and the adjudicator imposed a punishment. Following this, Mr C submitted a disciplinary appeal form. He said he was appealing on the grounds that he felt protocol was not fully adhered to. In particular, he said that his charge sheet did not have a charge number and evidence bag number, that contradictory timings were noted, and the internal complaints committee recorded the charge number on his report sheet before meeting with him.

Our investigation found that the prison had applied the proper process in Mr C's disciplinary hearing. It was clear the adjudicator found Mr C guilty based on his own plea and admission of guilt, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C's tenant contacted him to say that he had received some advice regarding his tenancy from the council. Mr C complained to the council about the advice his tenant said he received. The council investigated Mr C's complaint. They aaccepted that the tenant had been given some poor advice and apologised for this. However, they told Mr C that there was no evidence to suggest that other aspects of advice the tenant claimed to have received, had been provided. Mr C was unhappy with this outcome and complained to our office that the council had not reasonably responded to his complaints.

We investigated and found that the council had reasonably investigated Mr C's complaints, apologised appropriately to him and taken action to correct any errors they had made. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Following the end of his tenancy, Mr C wrote to the housing association to complain about being charged for necessary repairs after he vacated the property. He also wanted to claim compensation for damage to his personal property, which was caused by a flood. The association investigated Mr C's complaints and agreed to write off the charges for the repairs, but did not offer compensation for the damage to personal property.

Mr C brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with how it was handled. He said that a complaints committee meeting was held at a time he could not attend; that all the available information was not taken into account; and that the association had refused to return documents to him.

We did not uphold any of these complaints. Our investigation found that Mr C was not required to attend the committee meeting and that he was not invited. The association were free to make this decision as was clearly stated within their policy. We also found that the committee had extensive information available to them, and the minutes of the meeting showed that it had been considered. There was no evidence to suggest that documents had not been returned as requested.

Summary
Mr C went to a hospital accident and emergency unit after falling from height. He complained that the care and treatment he received there was inadequate. He said that there was a failure to x-ray and diagnose a fracture that caused him severe pain in the weeks after. Mr C said he was eventually x-rayed about two weeks after the fall and told about the fracture five days after that. He wanted to know why he was not x-rayed when he first went to hospital, considering the accident he had and the pain he was in. He also said that when he complained to the hospital about his care and treatment, they delayed in responding to his concerns.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We took advice from our medical adviser, who said that the need for an x-ray was a matter of clinical judgement. He said that the assessing clinician should (and did) take into account Mr C's age and gender, how the injury happened, look for various external evidence of injury, as well as evidence of nerve or spinal damage, and assess Mr C's mobility. He commented that a spinal fracture from low impact injury is unusual in men of Mr C's age, and that an x-ray was not mandatory in his situation. He said that the judgement of the assessing clinician that an x-ray was not necessary was not unreasonable, even with the benefit of hindsight.

We also found that there were valid reasons for the delays in the board responding to Mr C's complaint. This included that a consultant whom Mr C wished to meet to discuss his concerns was abroad for several months. When the board told Mr C about this, he said he wished to wait for the consultant to return. We also noted that the board kept Mr C regularly updated about his complaint during this period and gave him the opportunity to contact us if he so wished.