Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Miss C complained that when a heart murmur (an extra or unusual sound heard during a heartbeat) was detected on the morning of pre-planned surgery she was asked to 'have a chat' with a cardiologist (heart specialist).

When she saw the cardiologist he did some tests. Miss C felt that she was misled about this. She also said that she has never been provided with the results of the tests.
We did not uphold Miss C's complaint as our investigation found that referral to the cardiologist was appropriate in the circumstances. The board also confirmed that, as is normal practice, the test results were sent to Miss C's GP. They were apparently also discussed with Miss C on the day.

Miss C was concerned that she had not yet had access to her clinical notes. At the time of our investigation, the board were in the process of arranging this. As Miss C raised the issue of accessing her records with us before she had raised it with the board, we could not take it forward.

We informed Miss C of this position and gave advice on complaining to the board. We advised her that she could advised her that she could bring her complaint to us if she was still unhappy after the board had finished looking at it.

Miss C also raised concerns about information that she felt had been withheld or was incorrect. We could not look at this issue as she could not specify what information this was.

Summary
Miss C was unhappy about communications with NHS staff when using mainstream services for her physical ailments. She raised various concerns about interactions she had had recently with NHS staff.

Miss C said that she felt that staff were not listening to her wishes or concerns and were not taking notice of an Advance Decision Letter (ADL) which set out her wishes as to what treatments she would and would not consent to. She attributed this to her mental health issues which were known to the staff who were dealing with her physical problems.
She was also concerned that a letter from the head of administration, who had been involved in her complaint, had been placed in her clinical case file. The NHS guidelines for dealing with complaints state that correspondence about complaints should not be held on a patient's clinical records.

On investigation we found, however, that this letter was in fact about the ADL, explaining its background and context. As such, although it was from one of the board's staff who had been heavily involved in her complaint, it was not complaints correspondence. We also considered that it was appropriate that an explanatory letter was placed in Miss C's file as ADLs are usually only used in the case of patients with terminal, life limiting, or life threatening conditions. This was not the case for Miss C.

Having considered all of Ms C's concerns, we did not uphold a number of her complaints and were unable to take others forward as they were either out of time; out of jurisdiction; or were already being considered under another complaint reference within SPSO.

Summary
Mr C complained that the treatment he received in hospital for his broken arm failed to take full account of an existing arthritic condition in his shoulder. He felt that this was the reason that the bone did not heal. He also complained that the board did not provide information about whether a support group existed for sufferers of his condition.

We investigated the complaint and took specialist medical advice. We found that Mr C's medical notes showed that each time he was seen, clinicians were fully aware of his existing condition and made their recommendations for his treatment in this knowledge.

Our adviser confirmed that Mr C's treatment was entirely appropriate for the symptoms with which he presented. We also found that, regardless of his suspicion, a longer period of immobilisation would not have been beneficial. On the issue of locating a support group, our adviser confirmed that it would be for Mr C's GP, not the hospital, to recommend such a group, should one exist.
 

Summary
After she was admitted to a private care home, Mr C had concerns about his mother's care and treatment there. He complained to the care home and then to the Care Commission (this organisation is now called the Care Inspectorate). The Care Commission responded to six separate complaints over an eight-month period. They upheld most of them, and made recommendations for improvement.

While Mr C awaited the outcome of the last of the six complaints investigated by the Care Commission the care home was the subject of a themed inspection by Care Commission officers (as part of that body's regulatory function).

Mr C had taken issue with the Care Commission's previous overall grading of the care home as ‘good’. He believed that this grading should not have been maintained after a more recent inspection and sought to have this investigated as a complaint. However, the Care Commission and then the Care Inspectorate told him that this could not be dealt with through the complaints procedure. When Mr C persisted, the Care Inspectorate told him that they intended to apply to him part of that procedure relating to persistent and vexatious complainants.

Mr C then complained to the SPSO that this procedure was incorrectly applied. We did not uphold this, however, as we found that Mr C had inappropriately persisted in pressing the matter as a complaint, despite having had it clearly explained to him that the complaints procedures excluded complaints about the inspection process.

Summary
After she was admitted to a private care home, Mr C had concerns about his mother's care and treatment. He complained to the care home and then to the Care Commission (this organisation is now called the Care Inspectorate). The Care Commission responded to six separate complaints from Mr C over an eight-month period. They upheld the majority and made recommendations for improvement.

Mr C then complained to us that the Care Commission failed to investigate his concern that his mother was victimised due to her family raising complaints. However, we found no evidence that Mr C had made a complaint about this particular matter at the time.

Mr C was also unhappy with the Care Commission's inspection and rating of the care home. He complained to us that, after he continued to question this, the Care Commission incorrectly took action against him under the part of their complaints procedure that deals with 'persistent or vexatious complainants'.

Our investigation found that there was no maladministration in the taking of that decision, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
This complaint was made on behalf of the owners of a hotel. Business Stream Ltd identified during an audit in 2011 that the hotel was occupied and started billing them from 2008. Mr C considered Business Stream Ltd's actions were unreasonable. He said that they had taken an excessive time to contact the hotel and send a bill; that they said they had tried to contact the hotel but that was not the case; that they failed to deal with the complaint appropriately; and said they would accept a repayment plan then demanded payment in full.

Our investigation found, however, that Business Stream had appropriately followed their own policies in relation to each of these matters.

Summary
Mr C complained about the cost of the supply of water to his business. The water meter, which is on the footpath in the road outside, had been changed three times due to damage. Mr C said that, as he considered that his bills were higher than his neighbours who had similar businesses, the calculations were incorrect. He complained to Business Stream Ltd but remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

When we investigated this we found that there had been problems in the past. We also found, however, that Business Stream had dealt with Mr C's concerns appropriately, and had provided him with relevant explanations and information. 

Summary
Ms C complained, on behalf of clients, about Business Stream Ltd's decision to refuse to allow them a smaller, 20 millimetre, water meter. Ms C complained that the decision was unreasonable and claimed that a 20 millimetre water water meter would be more suitable for the site's consumption. She provided figures to support this, and evidence showing that this would reduce her client's fixed water charges by over £2,000 a year.

Water bills are affected by the size of the water meter. You can apply to have a water meter changed if you believe your water meter is larger than necessary. Scottish Water own the water meters, and where Business Stream receives a request to downsize them, they refer it to Scottish Water for consideration. The customer is asked to complete and submit a loading unit assessment sheet confirming their usage. This sheet is then reviewed by Scottish Water who will make the final decision on it. If the completed sheet concludes that a smaller meter is appropriate, the customer is asked to pay the cost to change the meter.
In this case, Scottish Water told Business Stream that meter sizing is determined based on both consumption and estimated peak demand. They said that it would be technically possible to install a 20 millimetre meter, but that the information Ms C had provided indicated that the meter would be undersized for the demand at the property. They said a 20 millimetre meter would reduce the accuracy of recorded consumption and increase wear on the meter.

We are not an appeal body for the decisions of organisations. We can check a decision is properly made and will look at the process and procedures involved. If we find that something's gone wrong, we can make recommendations. In this case, our investigation found that the decision was properly made and followed the proper procedures. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that his GP failed to refer him to a specialist for carpal tunnel syndrome. He also complained that his GP failed to diagnose him with cubital tunnel syndrome. He said that his GP did not examine him and dismissed his concerns about pins and needles in his little finger because this was an unusual symptom of carpal tunnel syndrome.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the practice said that the GP had carried out an examination and referred him to a specialist. The practice also said that there was no mention of tingling or numbness in his little fingers in either his medical records or the correspondence from the hospital orthopaedic consultant.

We took advice from our medical adviser. The adviser said that although the entry in Mr C's medical records was inadequate in terms of the examination carried out by the GP, a referral had been made to the appropriate specialist. We also confirmed that there was no evidence in Mr C's medical records or letters from the specialist to reflect that Mr C had specifically complained about pins and needles in his little finger. The GP records referred to pins and needles across Mr C's fingers and a hospital letter in particular referred to numbness in Mr C's left middle finger.

We concluded that it was made clear that Mr C was experiencing symptoms of cubital tunnel syndrome only after surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome had left symptoms of numbness in his little finger. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that he was paying the full sewerage charge for his property along with his Council Tax but that only one side of his property drains into the public sewer. The other side drains into a private septic tank for which he is liable for the upkeep. He considered that he should, therefore, not be liable for the full sewerage charge. He raised the issue with Scottish Water but, following a visit to his property, his claim was rejected. Mr C also considered he had been given conflicting information about his eligibility for a rebate.

Having investigated Scottish Water's basis for charging, however, we found that Mr C had been charged correctly. We also found no evidence that he had been given conflicting information and so we did not uphold his complaints.