Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C's daughter was a candidate for the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA) Higher physics examination in May 2010.

In early 2010, she obtained a B grade pass in the school’s preliminary physics examination and had targeted the same grade in the final Higher examination.

In the event, Mr C’s daughter attained a C grade pass in the Higher examination, and the school submitted an appeal on behalf of Mr C’s daughter and another student in August 2010. Both appeals were dismissed and the results stood. In returning the appeals, the SQA provided two reasons for their decision, both relating to the validity of the school’s preliminary examination.

Mr C submitted subsequent complaints against the SQA and the council (as education authority).

He complained that the council failed to provide him with a clear explanation of the reasons why the Higher physics preliminary examination in 2010 did not meet the SQA's criteria. In response, the council advised that they considered that the school preliminary examination was adequately moderated and did not accept the SQA’s explanation. The investigation considered that the council were entitled to take that view and the complaint was not upheld.
 

Summary
Mr C complained about a number of issues relating to the development of a car wash and snack bar site next to his home and what he considered the council's failure to take effective enforcement action against the site operators. He also raised a complaint about a planning application he had submitted for his own property. As Mr C had not raised the complaints about his own planning application with the council, we were unable to investigate them at this time.

We were able to consider Mr C’s complaints about the council's failure to take effective enforcement action. We found that it was clear that the developer of the neighbouring site was operating a car wash and snack bar without planning consent and that this use was not authorised in planning terms. However, on consideration of the evidence it became clear that the council were working actively to ensure that the developer applied for the appropriate consents for the business.

Whilst Mr C wanted the council to take immediate enforcement action, Government guidance explains that enforcement action should only be taken proportionately and when it is clear that the matter cannot be resolved through negotiation.

As we did not find evidence that the council had failed to consider these matters appropriately, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mrs C complained that the council did not take her concerns appropriately into account when planning Core Paths (a system of public access paths) in the area she lives and that she was not given appropriate information about the process. She appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and was concerned about the impartiality of the DPEA’s conclusions in relation to her objections. Mrs C complained that there were long delays in the council responding to her letters during the complaints procedure.

Having looked at the evidence provided by the council, we concluded that Mrs C's concerns had been appropriately taken into consideration, and that she had been given advice and relevant information throughout every stage of the Core Paths planning process. In addition, we considered that there was insufficient evidence to support that the council had delayed in responding to Mrs C complaint and did not uphold the complaints.

Summary
Mrs C complained about a housing development next to her home. She was concerned that the council had not considered the loss to her amenity when granting planning consent for this development. She also complained that the council failed to notify neighbours individually, as they were required to do. As a result, Mrs C felt her right to object was removed.

When Mrs C complained formally to the council, the Director of Development Services explained that had she objected, he would have reached the same decision. Mrs C she felt that this statement undermined her statutory right as an objector.

As we had already upheld a complaint about the lack of neighbour notification from another resident, we did not look into this issue. We found evidence from the council’s planning report that officers had considered the issue of amenity of neighbouring residents and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the statement from the Director was reasonable as the council had considered relevant 'material' facts in planning terms. As a result we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that his practice failed to provide a reasonable standard of medical care on a number of occasions. He went to his practice complaining of pain and was prescribed a drug that he said led to his collapse later in the evening. Later, he went to his practice complaining about severe indigestion and nausea which he believed was a reaction to the medication he was prescribed and was eventually prescribed a different medication. Following an operation, Mr C sought treatment from the practice when he had discomfort and his wound began to leak. He did not receive treatment and went to hospital where he said he was diagnosed with internal bleeding.

We found that on the whole the care and treatment Mr C received from the practice was reasonable. Mr C was prescribed a drug that should have been used with caution, but that there were no contraindications to its use and it was discontinued the following day. We found no evidence that the practice failed to provide a reasonable standard of care to Mr C on the other occasions.

Summary
Mr C complained that a medical practice acted unreasonably in sending him a letter warning him of unacceptable/intimidating behaviour following a visit to the practice. Mr C disputed that, during the incident in question, his behaviour had been unacceptable/intimidating. In the absence of objective evidence to support Mr C's version of events, we were unable to uphold the complaint. However, we did suggest to the practice that, as a matter of good practice and so that additional evidence is available if they are challenged, they should consider keeping a contemporaneous record of such incidents in future.
 

Summary
Mr C attended an Accident and Emergency department in October 2009 complaining of pain, weakness and pins and needles in his left wrist. An initial diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, secondary to an underlying arthritis, was made. He was referred for review by an orthopaedic consultant and subsequently to a rheumatologist. It was not until he was seen by a locum rheumatologist in August the following year that he was given steroid injections, which relieved his pain.

Mr C was referred back to the orthopaedic consultant and underwent carpal tunnel decompression surgery in March 2011. He complained about delays to the progression of his treatment, the lack of steroid injections during earlier appointments and the unnecessary pain he had to endure as a result. He also complained that the board took an unacceptable length of time to diagnose a particular infection in his wrist.

We found that Mr C's case was particularly unusual. Separate investigations into a bad cough proved positive for an organism that can cause tuberculosis. As Mr C did not have active tuberculosis at the time, we found the board's decision not to provide treatment to be reasonable. The orthopaedic consultant was concerned that Mr C did not have a straightforward case of carpal tunnel syndrome and carried out exploratory surgery which showed he had inflammation of the lining of the tendons of his wrist which can be associated with tuberculosis. Once this was identified, he referred Mr C back to the chest physician who had investigated his cough. We were satisfied that appropriate diagnostic tests were subsequently carried out. We did not find that the treatment of Mr C's wrist or the diagnosis of his infection were unduly delayed and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C's daughter (Ms A) was admitted to hospital suffering from abdominal pain. A few days later, a scan revealed a large cyst on Ms A's left ovary. The registrar telephoned the on-call duty consultant. They decided to discharge Ms A and to arrange elective surgery at a later date as her condition stabilised and Ms A was told to return to hospital if the severe pain returned. Several days after her discharge, Ms A saw a private consultant who operated and removed a cyst from her left ovary.

Mr C complained that the staffing levels were unreasonable during his daughter’s admission to hospital which meant that she was not reviewed personally by a consultant and that the discharge plan and arrangements were also unreasonable. He said that the failures by the board had put Ms A's life and health at risk.

We found that the staffing levels were reasonable and that the care and treatment Ms A received, including the discharge plan and arrangements, was also reasonable. We found no evidence that Ms A required emergency surgery on her discharge from hospital or that her health or life was at risk at any time.

Summary
Mrs C complained that when she was admitted to a ward at the hospital she initially made progress. However, she became unwell and stated that a nurse’s attitude towards her then became unacceptable. Mrs C stated that the nurse’s attitude was aggressive and frightening in her manner towards her and in how she spoke to her. She also said the nurse treated her cheekily and roughly, pushed her and struck her twice.

Mrs C also stated there were failures in her care at the hospital. This centred round the use, prescription; and monitoring of anticoagulant therapy (warfarin). Mrs C said errors were made that could have had fatal consequences.

After investigating Mrs C’s complaint, we did not uphold that there was any error or omission in Mrs C’s clinical care and we found that the management of the warfarin was entirely reasonable. We also did not uphold any aspect of Mrs C’s complaints about the nurse’s behaviour towards Mrs C as there was no evidence to support her allegations.
 

Summary
Mr C made a complaint to the university and proceeded through the first two stages of their complaints procedure. As he remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of the second stage of the complaints procedure he submitted a third stage complaint.

When approaching the escalated stage, the university decided that it did not meet the criteria for consideration at stage three. Mr C did not provide the required new information (which was any evidence that there was bias or prejudice on the part of those who dealt with the complaint or that showed a breach of the complaints procedure).

The university gave Mr C their decision with a further explanation in relation to some of his points of complaint. They informed him of his right to approach the SPSO if he remained dissatisfied. Mr C complained to us about the university’s actions, saying that that they had failed to provide access to the university’s complaints procedure.

We found that the university had considered Mr C’s appeal submission and that they had reached a discretionary decision, as they are entitled to do, that the criteria for an appeal had not been met. We decided, therefore, that we would not consider his complaints further.