Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C is one of a group of neighbours in dispute with the council over the status of a road that serves both their properties and the site of a house recently granted planning consent. They said that the road and verge were not adopted by the council and that a road widening scheme that was required before construction of a new property could not be accommodated. They also said that the council have not addressed their concerns over road safety, that a turning area they consider is required to allow for refuse lorries etc is not adopted, and that, as owners, they would not consent to it becoming adopted.

The council confirmed that the road in question is recorded on their lists as being adopted and that this includes the verge. They have also responded to a private report obtained by the neighbours from a roads consultant which raised concerns about the road scheme. This report, along with the neighbours' concerns, was submitted to the planning committee when they considered the application. The council accepted they were mistaken in their view that the turning area was adopted but explained that, as this should have been adopted when neighbouring houses were being constructed, they would not take steps to adopt this area of road.

We considered the concerns raised by Mr C. We could not determine the issue of the adoption of the road or verge as this can only be determined in court. We found that the council had considered the safety concerns of neighbours, although we appreciated that the neighbours did not agree with the council's view. We also considered that the council could not stop the developer from proceeding with their development prior to satisfying the neighbours of the legal status of the road. As a result of this, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary
The complainant, Mr C, complained that the council denied him sufficient opportunities to arrange a time when he could allow the council's gas engineers access to carry out a statutory gas safety inspection.

We reviewed the procedures the council had in place in relation to the arrangements of appointments for gas safety checks and also reviewed what actually happened in this case. From our review it was apparent that the council and their contractors contacted Mr C three times by letter and left two postcards requesting that he contact them to make arrangements for access. As Mr C did not do so, the council wrote to advise that they had no choice but to take steps to force entry and to apply an administration fee.

As the council acted in accordance with their procedures, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his complaint about a local trader properly. Mr C said he had problems with a car he purchased from a trader and asked trading standards to help. Mr C said he called trading standards many times and had to go the complaints department at the council and write to the chief executive before the trading standards service would do anything for him.

In their response to our enquiry on the complaint, the council provided copies of their complaints procedure, the criminal legislation relevant to this case, their enforcement policy and the code of practice on which the policy is based, as well as trading standards' electronic computer record on the complaint about the trader and copies of correspondence between Mr C and the council and the council's internal communications.

The evidence showed that the action taken by trading standards was in accordance with the criminal legislation they enforce, their enforcement policy and the code of practice. The evidence showed that trading standards endeavoured to mediate in Mr C's civil dispute and provide information on the feedback they received from the trader. The council responded to Mr C's complaints about the trading standards service in accordance with the timescales set out in their complaints procedure.

The council's trading standards service are duty bound to consider any breaches of the criminal legislation they enforce and it is for them to determine what action if any is appropriate. There is no obligation on the council's trading standards service to provide any assistance to consumers who have contractual disputes with traders. However, the council have chosen to provide a mediation service for consumers in their area. This does not mean that they are required to represent consumers but simply to mediate in the dispute.

The evidence showed that the council dealt with Mr C's complaint properly and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C raised his concerns about the council's decision to grant permission to his neighbour to install car access to his home.

He complained that the council had not carried out a consultation prior to granting consent and had not carried out an appropriate risk assessment. He stated that he was concerned about the safety implications of the driveway, partially as there was a primary school opposite.

The council explained that installation of the driveway did not require planning consent. The only permissions required were in terms of a consent to allow vehicles to cross the pavement and a road opening permit to allow works to lower the kerb. A qualified roads engineer from the council assessed the site against the council's roads guidance as safe.

As the council had complied with its responsibilities in terms of the relevant roads legislation and as they had carried out the necessary assessments, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mrs C was awarded a grant through the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 for repairs to her house roof. As the initial contractors could not carry out the works quickly enough, Mrs C obtained a further contractor directly who proceeded to carry out the works.
Once the contractor completed the works, they applied for payment of the grant. The works were inspected by a council officer and the grant monies paid. Mrs C was not happy with the quality of the works and complained that the council should not have paid the monies. The council had inspected the works and had requested further works be carried out before payment of the grant.

As it was Mrs C who instructed the contractor, she had a legal relationship with them and would normally be able to pursue them for any problems with the work. The contractor appeared, however, to be no longer trading. We found that the council did not have a responsibility to monitor or guarantee the works. We established they had inspected the works which were completed to their satisfaction for the purposes of making the grant payment. For this reason we were satisfied that the council had acted appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint.
 

Summary
Mrs C, who was the manager of a care home, complained to the board about the way one of her residents (Mrs A) was discharged from hospital back to the care home. Mrs C felt that it was inappropriate to have discharged Mrs A as she was in an unkempt state, was agitated; had struggled with ambulance staff; and that Mrs A's safety, along with that of care home staff, was at risk.

When Mrs C tried to have the hospital re-admit Mrs A, she was told the bed was no longer available. Mrs C also complained that the board's investigation of her complaint had not included seeking comments from clinical staff who had attended Mrs A following her discharge.

We established that Mrs A had been admitted to the hospital for an assessment and that when this had been completed then there was no clinical reason for her to remain in hospital. We did establish that there had been a communication issue between hospital staff in that initially Mrs A's hospital bed was to have been kept available for a time should she not settle back into the care home. However, from a clinical perspective it had been appropriate to discharge Mrs A from hospital.

We also found that the board's investigation of the complaint was reasonable and it was for them to decide who should be contacted to provide comments as part of their investigation.

Summary
Mrs C's mother (Mrs A) fell at home and was taken to A&E at Ninewells Hospital. X-rays confirmed that Mrs A had broken her femur and she was transferred to a ward a few hours later. The plan was for Mrs A to have surgery the next morning so she was given no food. When Mrs C called the ward the following morning she was told that there had been an emergency and Mrs A had not yet gone to theatre.

Mrs A went to theatre for her operation that evening. Mrs C telephoned the ward the next morning and was told that her mother had had a satisfactory night and was fine apart from being 'a bit chesty'. When Mrs C and her daughter arrived that afternoon they were told that Mrs A's condition had deteriorated and a team were attempting to resuscitate her. The attempt was unsuccessful and Mrs A died.

When her family saw her, they believed that she had been dead for some time given her pallor and temperature. Mrs C also complained that Mrs A was not given something to eat when she was transferred to the ward and that there had been an unreasonable delay in getting her to theatre. Furthermore, Mrs C believed that no appropriate action had been taken to address her mother's condition following surgery and that it was inappropriate that the family were not alerted when her condition deteriorated. Finally, Mrs C complained about the delay by the board in responding to her complaint.

The board accepted that Mrs A should have been given something to eat when she was transferred to the ward and apologised for their failure to do so. They also acknowledged that there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint and apologised.
In regards to the timing of the operation, we found that this was reasonable as Mrs A's operation began just over 24 hours after admission. We also found that Mrs A's deterioration was rapid and that the care and treatment she received following her operation was reasonable and timely and that the board's failure to alert the family was reasonable in the circumstances. Finally, we found that there was no evidence to bring the timing of Mrs A's death as recorded by the board into question.

Summary
Mr C made a number of complaints about the care and treatment he received in Ninewells Hospital. He had been admitted following a hernia operation at another hospital. At Ninewells, he was found to have a haematoma (bruise) and there was also some evidence of infection.

We found that Mr C had been monitored appropriately following his admission to the hospital. The SEWS (the Scottish Early Warning Score) charts had been completed regularly and appropriately throughout his admission. There was no evidence to suggest that the monitoring, assessment and management of his pain was not reasonable.

Although Mr C complained that he was not provided with his regular prescribed medication until the day after he was admitted, the drug administration record showed that he had self-administered some of his medication on the day of his admission. We found that staff clearly failed to provide him with other medication that he needed, but had not taken to the hospital. We upheld Mr C's complaint about this. However, we did not make any recommendations, as the board had already apologised to Mr C and were taking action to reduce the likelihood of similar problems recurring.

Mr C also complained that the board did not provide him with oral antibiotics for 26 hours after he was taken off an intravenous antibiotic drip, despite his repeated requests and complaints. We upheld this complaint, as the records were not clear on the matter. It was not possible for us to say categorically whether there was a delay in providing him with oral antibiotics or whether the original intention was that the antibiotics should be stopped.
We did not consider that Mr C was asked inappropriate questions in A&E or that the questions were unnecessarily duplicated when he was transferred to a ward. Mr C also complained that the records of his stay in the hospital had been fabricated. We found no evidence of this. In addition, we found that the board's handling of his complaint was satisfactory.

Recommendation
We recommended that the board:
• remind the medical staff involved in Mr C's care and treatment of the need to keep clear, accurate and legible records, which report the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made, the information given to patients, and any drugs prescribed or other investigations or treatment.

Summary
Mr C attended the practice for an appointment with his GP. During the consultation, he said that the GP told him off for failing to attend or cancel a hospital appointment that he had been referred to. Mr C did not like the GP's tone and walked out of the consultation. He complained to the practice manager and a further appointment was made for later the same day with another GP. Mr C explained to the second GP that he had been suffering from low mood over a period of days and had thought of taking his life. As Mr C was not diagnosed as being biologically depressed, it was not considered appropriate to give him medication. Counselling was offered, but declined by Mr C as he was already attending counselling sessions and did not find these to be beneficial. The practice were unable to offer him any alternative treatment and he was eventually asked to leave the premises.

Mr C complained about the practice's failure to address his feelings of low mood on the day of his appointments. We found that it was not appropriate for Mr C to be offered medication and that counselling was the correct course of action. Mr C had commented that he had thought about suicide. We were satisfied that he was appropriately assessed as being a low risk of suicide and that it was, therefore, reasonable for the consultation to end without any further treatment or referrals being proposed. We did not uphold his complaints.
 

Summary
Ms C complained that obstacles were put in her way when she attempted to register with a GP. Ms C complained that the systems in place at three medical practices to which she applied were obstructive and were not properly applied. She claimed that as a result she was prevented from registering with a GP.

Our investigation established that the systems in place at all three practices reflected national standards and were, therefore, found to be reasonable. In addition, in trying to resolve Ms C's complaint the board offered firstly to register Ms C at a practice of her choice. Ms C declined this offer as she felt it would negate her purpose in complaining.

Subsequently, when Ms C was dissatisfied with the responses from the individual practices, the board offered four months later to facilitate a new patient appointment at one of the practices. Again Ms C declined the offer on the basis that it would negate her complaint.

We found that the offers made by the board were a reasonable attempt to resolve not only Ms C's complaint but the difficulties she had found in registering with a GP. We expect complainants to co-operate with bodies in trying to resolve complaints and that where a reasonable offer to do so is made, we consider it appropriate for the complainant to accept such an offer. The board have confirmed that the offer to register Ms C at a practice of her choice is still open to her. We have encouraged Ms C to contact the board to discuss this.