Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mrs C's father was the tenant of a council property for many years until his death in 2011. In 2007, with the support of his family, Mrs C's father had applied to buy his house.
The council considered the application under the relevant legislation in place at the time (The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987). They refused it, on the grounds that the house had been adapted to accommodate a disabled person. Following her father's death, however, Mrs C said that the council let the house to an able bodied person and that the adaptations were removed. She complained to the council about this but remained dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us.

Our investigation found that, although the council had let the house to a person without a disability, this was only after procedures had been followed to try to accommodate a person specifically in need of the facilities provided. Only movable adaptations had been removed, and the council intend to keep the house (and the permanent adaptations that were made to it) within their housing stock.

We were satisfied that the council appropriately refused to sell the house to Mrs C's late father, and that they had considered and applied appropriate legislation and policies in making their decisions. We did not uphold her complaint.

Summary
Mr C had initially complained to us about a financial assessment carried out on a woman who had gone into care. We laid a report before parliament about that complaint in December 2010. We recommended that the council look at a document that they had not previously seen, and revisit their decision with a view to giving Mr C a full explanation of the reasons why the social work complaints review committee (CRC) had rejected his arguments.

As a result of our report the CRC re-convened to consider the recommendations. They considered that the document was sufficiently important for them to change their previous decision. Their recommendation was then put to the council's social work appeals sub committee. After hearing Mr C and a legal adviser, the sub committee took the view that there were exceptional circumstances in this case and that they should reject the CRC's recommendation. The sub committee minuted in detail their reasons for this. We did not uphold Mr C's new complaint that the council failed to provide a full and adequate explanation for the initial CRC decision. The fact that the CRC had taken a fresh look at the matter and changed their decision meant that the council did not then need to provide reasons for the earlier decision.

Summary
Mr C is a council tenant, who complained to the council about maintenance issues. He was specifically concerned about damaged trees, re-location of grit bins, a loose aerial, roughcasting repairs, rhone cleaning, and a missing skirting board and badly fitting extractor in his house. He was also dissatisfied with how his complaints about these matters had been handled.

In our investigation we reviewed the council's actions in all of these areas, noting that the matters had been ongoing for some time and that Mr C had had considerable contact with the council about them. We were, however, satisfied that the maintenance issues had been, or were being, dealt with in line with the council's relevant policies and procedures and that the council had handled his complaints appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary
Mr C lived in a sheltered housing complex. He complained that the council wrongly cautioned him about antisocial behaviour after a complaint was made against him that claimed he was responsible for noise nuisance.

We found, from looking at the information provided by Mr C and at the council's records, that the council issued the caution in the knowledge of the relevant facts available to them at the time. Mr C was given an opportunity to discuss the complaint against him, but did not take up that opportunity in time. Despite this, the council later considered Mr C's evidence. This did not, however, change their view that the caution was apropriate. We found that the council acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C owns a workshop on an area of land identified as a housing site in the local development plan (the plan) agreed in 2006. When carrying out a public consultation on a proposed update to the plan in 2010, the council decided to notify all properties within and adjacent to the site. Mr C learned of this in early 2011, and raised concerns with the council that he had not been notified of the proposed plan.

The council told him that they had notified people of the proposed plan using the corporate newsletter and Royal Mail's address database, and that Mr C's property did not appear on these. They accepted that this system was not totally accurate, and explained that they also advertised the proposed plan locally. They apologised that their efforts had not ensured that Mr C had been made aware of the proposed plan.

Mr C also raised concerns that, after he spoke to a councillor about the matter, a developer had been made aware that Mr C had complained to the council. He asked the council if they knew how this had happened. In responding the council said that no council officer had provided this information to the developer. They asked Mr C which councillor he had spoken to and said that on receipt of that information they would check what their involvement might have been. Mr C supplied this information to the council but did not receive a response.

During our enquiries the council reviewed their communication with Mr C and wrote to him telling him about the action they had taken to investigate whether the councillor had provided information about him to the developer, and explaining their conclusion that he had not. They also explained that, although they had spoken to the councillor at the time, they had not replied to Mr C because he had said that he was bringing his complaints to us. We decided that the council had acted reasonably in the notification process, and that their explanation for why they had not responded to Mr C was also reasonable, as at that stage Mr C had already completed the council's complaints procedure.

Summary
Mr C was concerned about his prescription for gluten-free products, and wrote to his GP practice several times about it. The GP responded explaining that they also wished to resolve the issues about Mr C's prescription and invited him to make an appointment to discuss this. Mr C was unhappy with this response and complained to us that since he registered with the practice they had refused to prescribe gluten-free products to him.

The practice told us that they believed that each request had been fulfilled as Mr C had wished, although they recognised that he remained dissatisfied. Our investigation found no evidence that the practice had refused to prescribe him with gluten-free products. We also found that their actions in seeking resolution of the matter were reasonable.

Summary
Mr C complained that the board did not provide pelvic support girdles, which he considered his partner needed because of pelvic pain in pregnancy. We explained to him that our role in such complaints is limited because it is not for us to tell the NHS how to use their financial resources. Our role was solely to consider if the board's decision making had been flawed.

The board had taken a decision six years earlier not to provide these support belts because there was not enough likelihood of benefit. Our investigation found that the board had consulted various studies and European guidelines since then to ensure that the decision remained up-to-date. We concluded that this was appropriate decision making. Mr C had also been concerned that the decision seemed to be based on cost, rather than clinical need. However, health boards have to manage their resources carefully and are expected to reach decisions by considering factors such as a balance of cost and likely benefit. We considered it entirely reasonable for the board to take account of cost.

Summary
Ms C made a number of complaints about her GP's handling of her healthcare. She said that the GP did not fully investigate or appropriately refer her to investigate and treat her health issues. She also complained about staff attitude in relation to a cervical cancer screening programme. In addition, Ms C was unhappy with the board's handling of her complaints, as she felt they had not addressed the issues she had raised.

We reviewed all Ms C's correspondence and obtained background correspondence and copy medical records from the board. We also took advice from one of our medical advisers. The practice concerned is administered by the health board on one of Scotland's outer islands. Therefore, the responsibility for investigating the complaints fell to the board although the GP had responded directly to Ms C on the majority of the issues. The remaining issues concerned nursing care and were investigated by the board's primary care manager.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that all of the issues she raised had been addressed, although she did not in the end receive a detailed letter of response from the board itself. This is because due to the nature and volume of Ms C's correspondence with the board, they invoked their 'Unreasonably Demanding or Persistent Complainant Policy'. This says that once the policy has been invoked the board will not respond to further correspondence unless it raises completely new issues.

We found that the GP's treatment and management of Ms C's various medical conditions was reasonable. All relevant investigations and referrals were made in an appropriate and timely manner. Overall, our adviser described the GP's management of Ms C's case as holistic and clinically sound. Similarly, there was no evidence to suggest that the care and treatment and attitude of the nurse was anything other than reasonable and appropriate.

Summary
Mr C complained that his GP practice decided to restrict the number of diabetic testing strips he could have, and then stopped providing them. He said that this was unfair and did not take into consideration his personal circumstances. Mr C said that self monitoring of his diabetes cannot be done efficiently without the strips, and that testing more frequently helped him manage his severe anxiety about his condition. Mr C also complained that the practice had inaccurately implied that he was selling his testing strips online.

In response to the complaint, the practice said that Mr C was using excessive amounts of testing strips and that this view was shared by the diabetic team. Mr C had been referred to a psychologist in order to address his anxiety. The practice had restricted the number of testing strips, but had not stopped prescribing them. They had, however, refused to provide them to Mr C on demand. They also explained that they had discussed with Mr C information that they had received from the local pharmacy. This was that a member of the public had contacted the pharmacy to say that they had purchased testing strips from a website, and that the packaging it was in contained details of the pharmacy and Mr C.

We concluded that the practice had acted reasonably in reducing the amount of strips they provided to Mr C as the decision was taken after the practice had received input from the diabetic clinic and after referring Mr C to a psychologist in an attempt to address his anxiety. We also considered that the practice acted reasonably in discussing with Mr C the information they received from the pharmacy, particularly when the number of testing strips he used was highly excessive.

Summary
Mrs C was unhappy with the care and treatment provided to her late father (Mr A). She complained that the board failed to reasonably monitor Mr A after he had a heart pacemaker (a device that regulates heartbeat) fitted, and that they unreasonably delayed in identifying that, after Mr A had knee replacement surgery, his anticoagulant (blood clot preventing) medication was causing nausea (sickness).

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints. We looked at the medical records and took advice from one of our medical advisers and found that the board monitored Mr A reasonably after his pacemaker was fitted. Our adviser was of the view that the care provided was in line with appropriate standards for the insertion and follow-up of pacemakers. The records suggested that Mr A had a combination of nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea and generalised weakness after knee replacement surgery. His blood count had fallen and his kidney function had worsened to some extent.

Our adviser said that just after an operation none of these symptoms or problems was unusual in patients in Mr A's age group, and all could have a wide variety of causes. Our adviser said that a worsening in kidney function could cause nausea, as could many medications used around the time of surgery.

Taking all this into account, there was no unreasonable delay in suggesting that the anticoagulant medication used might have been responsible for Mr A's nausea, and no unreasonable delay in changing it to another drug. Overall, our adviser said that no aspect of the care Mr A received fell below a standard that could reasonably be expected.