Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the board. C said that a ruptured Achilles tendon (the band of tissue that connects calf muscles at the back of the lower leg to the heel bone) was not identified in a timely way.

We took independent advice from an advanced nurse practitioner and from a consultant physiotherapist. We found that the care and treatment provided to C was consistent with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on when to suspect an Achilles tendon rupture, and with the board’s own pathway. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

C also complained about the way the board handled their complaint. We did not find any failings regarding the way the board handled C’s complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

C complained that Clear Business Water (CBW) had failed to bill their organisation accurately. C said that consequently they could not be certain that the bills were for properties that they were responsible for. C said that previously they had only had to supply leases to CBW and they had not had to provide information on the start or end of tenancies, or contact details for the tenants.

We found that CBW had provided a list of all the accounts they held for C's organisation and they had provided the Scottish Assessor's Association which corresponded to each account. It was, therefore, possible for C's organisation to ascertain which account was for which property. In addition, it was a requirement of the relevant legislation that the owner of a property provide the licensed provider with details of occupancy. We found that CBW were acting reasonably when billing C's organisation and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

A number of years ago, Mr C bought a new build property from a housing developer. Mr C had work done to his property and the structural steel beams were exposed. Mr C was concerned that they did not have adequate fire protection and that the construction differed from the plans approved by the council.

Mr C complained that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations by issuing a completion certificate for his property. Mr C also complained that the council failed to handle his concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner.

We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that it was appropriate that the council issued a completion certificate, as they took reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the mandatory building standards had been met. We also found that the council responded to Mr C's concerns about the safety of his property in a reasonable manner by providing technically detailed and competent information. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was the owner of a property which included a parking space noted in the title deeds. Subsequently, Mr C installed a collapsible parking pole to prevent others parking in the space. The council issued a notice to Mr C requiring that he remove the parking pole. The council advised Mr C that the road had been adopted as a 'public road', which meant control of the road rested with the council. Mr C disputed the council's position and pointed towards the council's inability to provide a complete copy of a technical drawing which accompanied a road construction consent form. He considered that this meant that the council could not demonstrate that the parking space was part of the public road.

Mr C complained about the council's decision to require him to remove the parking pole. We found that the council has discretionary power to require removal of something placed in a public road causing obstruction. Mr C had not been granted consent in writing to install a parking pole in the parking space he owned. We found no maladministration in relation to the council's decision-making in this matter. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained about the council's investigation into a missing technical drawing. We found that a black and white copy of the drawing was available and this had evidentiary value in the council confirming which areas were originally intended to form part of the adopted road. We also found that a separate document consisted in the main record for delineating adopted areas. We were satisfied that the steps taken by the council to search for the document were reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to produce accurate reports for various planning applications. He also believed that officers had made mistakes whilst exercising their delegated authority. Mr C was also concerned the council had not followed the correct procedures for their planning committee. He said that the council's response to his complaint had been based on a report prepared by a firm of lawyers which had not responded to all the issues he had raised, or recognised matters which Mr C considered were an established matter of fact.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council's approach had been confusing at times and was poorly worded. We noted that this had led to delays in the planning process; however, it had not materially affected the decision reached by the planning committee. We found that although there was disagreement between some of the council officers consulted and the planning officers who had reached the delegated decisions, the decisions themselves represented the reasonable exercising of professional judgement by the planning officers.

We also found that there was no maladministration in the planning committee's adherence to the council's Standing Orders and Scheme of Administration. However, we did note that the documents were confusing. The council had recognised the wording of the Scheme of Administration around site visits and voting was unclear. They had already agreed to take steps to address this.

We also found that the council had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaints by commissioning an investigation by an external law firm. Although this had not answered each point raised by Mr C, we found that it had provided a reasonable response, which had addressed his underlying concerns. We did not, therefore, uphold any of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C contacted us on behalf of Ms A, as she had concerns that the housing association had failed to respond to their concerns about disrepair in their house. Ms C said there were also concerns about the association failing to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour and requests for repairs. Ms C told us that Ms A was classed as a vulnerable adult and suffered from poor mental and physical health. These issues were being exacerbated by the association's failures.

We found that some of the repair issues had been addressed and that some of Ms C's complaints had been upheld by the association in respect of a failure to investigate anti-social behaviour complaints. We also found that the responsible housing officer was on long-term leave, and that this had caused difficulties in determining whether issues had been raised with them by Ms C or Ms A.

We found that the association could evidence their response to complaints of disrepair and that investigations and work had been carried out. Additionally, some of the issues being raised by Ms C, such as decoration within the property, were not repair issues. We also found that the association had offered to address any issues which Ms C believed to be outstanding and also to review any emails which Ms C felt she had not received an adequate response to. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their child (A) who is an adult with incapacity. C complained that the partnership failed to reasonably safeguard A before and after a reported incident involving a support worker. We found that the partnership's commissioning of services for provision of care followed standard practice and that reviews carried out did not indicate A was at any risk from support workers. We also found that, after the reported incident, the support worker was removed from the care package. We considered that the partnership reasonably safeguarded A before and after the reported incident. We did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

C also complained that the partnership failed to involve them and their partner in the decision-making process regarding A's welfare and that there was a failure to discuss with them the importance of seeking medical screening after the reported incident.

We found that there was a lack of communication with C and their partner (which the partnership had apologised for), but we did not consider it was usual practice for the partnership to involve them in professional meetings where decisions were made under Adult Support and Protection procedures. We also did not consider that it was the role of the partnership to advise C and their partner to arrange any medical screening. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C's mother (Mrs A) was in hospital for an extended period of time after a stroke. He complained that during that time the partnership failed properly to communicate with and include him in discussions about her care. He also said that the partnership unreasonably restricted the times when he could visit Mrs A.

Mr C complained to the partnership that he had been treated poorly by staff who failed to include him in discussions about Mrs A's care. He said that he particularly wanted to discuss the appropriateness of the use of cannabidiol (CBD) in the management of Mrs A's pain but that staff reacted negatively to this and made assumptions about his intent. He said that they unreasonably imposed restrictions on him.

In response, the partnership said that where a person had capacity to make their own decisions, like Mrs A, they were duty bound to allow them to make their own choices. Similarly, they had a legal duty to safeguard patients and to take necessary steps if there were concerns about their safety or wellbeing. With regard to the use of CBD oil, a number of meetings had been arranged with Mr C so that advice and guidance could be given about this but that he could not always attend, despite attempts being made to accommodate him.

We found that CBD oil capsules had been found in Mrs A's bed and an Adult Support and Protection case conference had been convened as a consequence. While Mr C had been invited, he could not attend. A further meeting was held, after being rearranged to suit Mr C to discuss non-prescribed medication and there had been lengthy discussions about the potential harm that could be caused. At this meeting, it was agreed, amongst other things, that Mr C would not bring non-prescribed medication in to the ward, that he would visit at specific times and that his visits would be supervised. These agreed measures would apply for two weeks after which they would be reconsidered. Further meetings were held because Mr C was unhappy and there had been incidents on the ward. After Mrs A's health improved and she became more able to state what she wanted, the issues with Mr C reduced. Mrs A was discharged from hospital.

On the basis of the information above, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that communication was unreasonable nor did we consider that the partnership had unreasonably imposed visiting restrictions upon him; we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the care and treatment she received from her GP practice. She said that staff at the practice had not listened to her and had not provided reasonable care and treatment for her adhesions, diarrhoea and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME; a long-term illness with a wide range of symptoms including extreme tiredness). She also said that the practice seemed fixated by her having depression and that she needed bereavement counselling or antidepressants without understanding her situation.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that there was no evidence that staff had not listened to Ms C and that they had provided reasonable care and treatment in relation to her adhesions, diarrhoea and ME. It was also reasonable for the practice to offer Ms C bereavement counselling along with other treatment in relation to this. We considered that the care and treatment provided to Ms C was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr A fell at home and a 999 call was made to the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) to attend. The call was prioritised as an emergency response where an ambulance would be dispatched as soon as one became available. An ambulance arrived with Mr A approximately four hours after the initial call. Mr A was later diagnosed with a broken hip.

During Mr A's rehabilitation in hospital, there were concerns that he had sepsis. Staff at the hospital called for an ambulance and requested an emergency response to transfer Mr A to another hospital for treatment. The ambulance arrived over two hours after the initial request.

Mr A's daughter (Mrs C) complained that the time taken for an ambulance to attend on both occasions was unreasonable and that Mr A's condition, on both occasions, should have resulted in an emergency response.

We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser. We found that on each occasion the delay in an ambulance attending was not attributable to failings on the part of SAS assessing and prioritising the requests for an ambulance, or not appropriately allocating its resources. The delays were a result of a lack of availability of resources at the times in question and ambulances attending to higher priority calls. Whilst there was a significant delay in the ambulance attending to Mr A on each occasion, this was not attributable to failings on the part of SAS handling the calls. We did not uphold the complaint.