Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A). A was given a diagnoses and later the board provided A with a second opinion. During the consultation the board say A became angry and behaved in a threatening way. The board said they would be happy to offer treatment to A, but this would be dependent on A following a set of recommendations. A said that during the second opinion consultation they were being called a liar, and while they raised their voice, they were not threatening. A told us that they had tried to meet the board’s recommendations, but that the board would not accept that they complied with the recommendations made.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist (a doctor who specialises in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental ill health conditions). We found that the board’s response to A’s behaviour was reasonable and in line with NHS policy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The recommendations the board made to A were reasonable. Due to A’s diagnosis, treatment would be most successful if A was able to make some changes to their behaviour. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

C brought a complaint to us about the care and treatment given to their late child (A). A was admitted to the Neo-Natal Unit at Forth Valley Royal Hospital due to prematurity and respiratory (the branch of medicine that deals with conditions affecting the lungs) distress and was a few weeks later admitted to the Children’s Ward. A was later diagnosed with cardiac (heart and its blood vessels) conditions. A underwent open heart surgery at the Royal Hospital for Children but later died.

C complained that the care and treatment provided to A was unreasonable because there were missed opportunities to diagnose A’s cardiac condition and that, had it been diagnosed earlier, there would have been a positive outcome.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist (a doctor who specialises in the female reproductive system, pregnancy and childbirth) and from a consultant in respiratory medicine. We found that overall the care and treatment was reasonable. In particular, there was no evidence that would suggest A’s heart condition had been missed in the neonatal period. We also found that, based on the available evidence, it was not possible to say conclusively that there had been an unreasonable delay in diagnosing A’s cardiac condition from a paediatric perspective. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained to the practice about a consultation they had. They said that they reported symptoms of severe pain and swelling of the abdomen and that they were grey in colour and had difficulty standing up. C said the practice prescribed them with laxatives (medication to help increase bowel movements). C continued to deteriorate and days later was admitted to hospital as an emergency, where it was found they had perforated diverticular (diverticula are small bulges or pockets that can develop in the lining of the intestine as you get older) disease. C said they had to undergo emergency surgery and were an inpatient for a month. C felt that the practice should have diagnosed their serious condition and arranged an urgent hospital admission.

We took independent advice from a medical practitioner. We found that the GP involved had carried out an appropriate examination based on C’s presenting symptoms and that a diagnosis of constipation was reasonable. There was no clinical indication that C’s health was going to suddenly deteriorate with severe diverticular disease and that they would require a hospital admission. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment their ex-partner (A) received from the board during a hospital admission. A was taken to hospital after self-harming. They had also written a suicide note, which was taken to hospital with them. After being assessed by psychiatric clinicians, it was decided that A did not require hospital admission for psychiatric observation or detoxification. It was also concluded that A showed no evidence of a specific plan or intent to carry out suicide and did not present with a mental illness. A was discharged that day but completed suicide the following day.

C complained to us about the general care and treatment provided to A and the fact that they were discharged home. In addition to this, C complained that they were not informed that A had been admitted to and discharged from hospital, given that they were still A’s next of kin.

We took advice on this complaint from an appropriately qualified adviser with a background as a consultant psychiatrist. We found that staff carried out an appropriately detailed assessment of A and made decisions that were in line with relevant guidance, based on the information available to them at the time. The board had previously acknowledged that the suicide note had not been reviewed by the clinicians who attended A and we agreed that this was a shortcoming. However, despite the outcome, we were satisfied that the board had provided a reasonable and appropriate level of care and treatment to A overall. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In respect of whether C should have been notified of A’s admission and discharge, we concluded that the board’s actions were reasonable. Although C was listed as A’s next of kin, A was living with their father at the time. It was reasonable for the hospital to conclude that A’s father was the most appropriate point of contact at that time. Therefore, it was reasonable for the hospital to discuss matters with A’s father rather than with C. With this in mind, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream incorrectly arranged for a meter to be installed at a vacant property belonging to his business, and were not entitled to charge for the provision of water and waste water services. Business Stream explained that following inspections by Scottish Water, it was established that there was a live supply to the property, that the meter which had been present was no longer there and, in the absence of evidence that a formal disconnection had been requested, they were entitled to install a meter and charge for relevant services. Mr C was not satisfied with the response and brought his complaint to us.

We saw evidence of Scottish Water undertaking inspections at the property. These established the presence of a live supply to the property, albeit the meter had been removed and the connection was not in use. There was no evidence of a formal disconnection, or one having been requested. In the circumstances, and in accordance with changes in government policy, Mr C's business was liable for charges for a live connection to the water network, regardless of whether the property was derelict. Scottish Water were entitled to install a meter and Business Stream were entitled to charge for services. We did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that Business Stream's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that Business Stream carried out a reasonable investigation and provided Mr C with appropriate responses. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained to us about the actions of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to a site near their home. They said that SEPA failed to adhere to their guidance in relation to the information required to carry out a risk assessment for the site. We found that SEPA were entitled to reach an initial decision that no further assessment was required on the site based on the information they held at that time. There was no evidence that they did not adhere to their guidance in relation to the matter and we did not uphold the complaint.

C also complained that SEPA failed to ensure that adequate site investigations were carried out for the site and that they took into account unreliable information. We found that the decisions made by SEPA, based on additional information that had been provided to them and on a basis of a site visit, were decisions that they were entitled to take. We did not uphold this complaint. However, we found that SEPA should have informed C that they were unable to open the videos/photos that C submitted. We provided feedback to SEPA about this matter.

Summary

C complained that the council, as planning authority, failed to provide reasonable justification to discharge two conditions relating to an approved planning application of a development of a historic site. C considered that the council discharged the conditions without the applicant providing solid evidence of compliance.

The first condition related to the pre-commencement condition for scheduled monument consent (SMC) (part one) and that the extension could not be used until the restoration of the site had been completed (part two). The council advised, initially, the discharge of part one of the condition was based on the SMC for the first stage of site works. Later the council justified the discharge of part one of the condition as it duplicated the effect of another organisation and therefore should not have been imposed as a pre-commencement condition.

We took independent planning advice. We found that while the council’s communication in relation to the discharge of the first condition could have been clearer and more consistent, their ultimate rationale was reasonable. Therefore we did not uphold this this aspect of the complaint.

The second pre-commencement condition related to the requirement for a full survey of the historic site and grounds to establish whether they were being used by roosting or hibernating bats and any further actions to minimise the disturbance of same if found. We found that the council had already acknowledged that the survey works should have been requested prior to the determination of the planning application rather than as a pre-commencement condition. As the condition had been made, the council considered the information provided by the applicant, including a bat survey report. On receipt of the report from that survey the council contacted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to gain their views. SNH confirmed their acceptance of the report. On the basis of the response from SNH, the condition was discharged. We found that the council provided reasonable justification for the discharge of the condition. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

C complained to us about the actions of the council in relation to a development near their home. They said that the council unreasonably accepted unreliable information from the applicant and failed to ensure that adequate investigations were carried out in relation to drainage from the site and ground water level. We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council acted reasonably in accepting advice on the matter from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. They were entitled to reach the decision they did, given that advice. We did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to enforce a planning condition in relation to the site entrance. We found that the planning officer had consulted roads officers on the details submitted to discharge the roads conditions. The council’s position in respect of there being no breach of consent was one that they were entitled to take. We did not uphold this complaint.

In addition, C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that a remedial strategy for field drainage was submitted in line with a planning condition. We found that it was a matter for the council to decide what action it is appropriate to take in respect of enforcement, and whether or not information submitted is sufficient to discharge conditions. In this case, the decisions taken by the council were decisions they were entitled to take and we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, C complained that the council unreasonably failed to ensure that the burial site visibility splay complied with their roads standards. We found that it was reasonable for the planning officer to have accepted advice from roads officers that the visibility splay had been inspected on site and determined to be acceptable, and to have discharged the condition accordingly. The council undertook the correct processes in determining the planning application and the discharge of the conditions, and therefore we did not uphold this complaint.

That said, we considered that the council should have published all of the information submitted to discharge the conditions and their responses at the appropriate time, so that interested parties were able to follow and understand the progress of the application. We provided feedback to the council in relation to this.

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received in hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that treatment was in line with recognised clinical practice. There were records of C’s medication being reviewed and altered on a number of occasions. There was also written evidence that a discharge plan was in place and discussed with C, although no specific discharge date had been set. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C made a number of complaints on behalf of their adult child (A) in relation to the service received from the partnership. We took independent advice from a social worker.

C complained about a delay in referring A for a functional assessment. Whilst we recognised the stress caused whilst waiting for the assessment and bathroom adaptations, we found that the process followed and the time taken was in accordance with standard practice.

C complained about the lack of an annual support plan for A. We considered that the partnership should have confirmed to A that the existing plan still applied; however, we noted that they had to comply with government guidance in care planning. This meant there was a high volume of care plans that required to be updated and priority was given to those with urgent critical or substantial need. A’s care needs had not changed substantially or critically and therefore A's care support was not reviewed until their needs changed when they moved to their own home.

C complained that a draft care and support plan prepared did not meet A's needs. We found that the needs documented from discussions were reflected in the draft care and support plan.

C also complained that A was not provided with copies of minutes of meetings. We found that it was not standard practice to provide copies of the particular type of meetings referred to.

Finally, C complained that a record of a home visit was inaccurate in that it was documented that A engaged with the social worker, when this was not the case. We found that it was not possible to establish what occurred on the day in the absence of other evidence.

We did not uphold any of C's complaints.