Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

C complained about the care and treatment provided by the ear nose and throat (ENT) clinic. C had been referred to the ENT clinic to have a nasal polyp (a painless soft growth in the nose) removed as they had been suffering sinus congestion. Prior to the procedure, C contacted the ENT clinic to advise they were suffering with severe tinnitus (ringing or buzzing in the ears) and cluster headaches. C complained that their concerns regarding tinnitus were not taken seriously and that there was a lack of follow-up once treatment had been provided.

We took independent advice from an ENT consultant. We found that appropriate referrals to neurology (the area of medicine that deals with disorders of the nervous system) and audiology (the area of medicine that treats those with hearing problems balance and related disorders) had been made and that there were no significant failings in the care and treatment provided to C in respect of their concerns. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C attended the Maternity Assessment Unit (MAU) at Crosshouse Hospital after suffering a bleed at home. Miss C had had a caesarean section at the same hospital a few weeks earlier. Miss C was reviewed by staff and an ultrasound scan was taken. Staff concluded the bleeding was likely related to Miss C's period starting and she was discharged home. Miss C was readmitted to the same hospital days later after she collapsed at home and was transferred to the Maternity High Dependency Unit where a further scan revealed a blood clot in the uterus. Miss C complained that she had received poor care at the MAU and that it was wrong to send her home only to be readmitted at a later date.

We took independent advice from a consultant. We found that staff performed appropriate investigations when Miss C attended the MAU, that it appeared her symptoms were improving and that there was no clinical reason for a hospital admission at that time. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A, who owned a business. Mr C complained that Clear Business Water failed to bill the business appropriately. Mr A believed that his water bills were too high and he had extensive contact with Clear Business Water over a number of months whilst efforts were made to establish a reason for this.

After agreement with Mr A, Clear Business Water arranged for Scottish Water to conduct a site visit and the engineer identified that a valve close to the meter was the cause of the issue. This valve was fixed and meter readings were subsequently obtained in order to calculate a 'burst allowance' credit. A credit for a limited period was applied to Mr A's account, whilst non-payment charges were also cancelled. Mr A remained unhappy with Clear Business Water's response to his complaint and Mr C brought the complaint to us.

We found that, although it took a number of months to identify the issue with the water supply, Clear Business Water communicated with Mr A appropriately and they did not significantly contribute to the delay. We also noted that Clear Business Water had offered a goodwill payment to Mr A and subsequently extended the period for which the burst allowance credit was applied.

We concluded that there were no failings in the service provided to Mr A and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of A regarding a bill for water usage at a business premises which was unusually high. After the water meter was removed and tested, it was found to be faulty, in that it was under-recording water usage. C was dissatisfied that these tests results were only representative of the meter performance at the time of it being tested and not at the time of the spike in usage. C also highlighted that the area was subject to historic flooding.

We did not identify evidence that the spike in water usage was supported by historic flooding in the area. The evidence available showed that the meter was under-recording the volume of water usage and did not explain the increased usage. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn him from his course of study. He considered that, contrary to the findings of the university's appeal process, he had appropriately corresponded with the university and engaged with his studies. He was removed for not responding to correspondence and not adhering to obligations of his visa with respect to attendance, particularly that he missed a number of face-to-face meetings.

We found that the university had corresponded with Mr C with respect to his studies, and a progress report for a number of months identified that he had failed to attend organised meetings. However, the university had not communicated with Mr C directly regarding his attendance or to remind him about the obligations in this regard, which was required under the university policy on student engagement.

We found that whilst the university should have issued additional communications to Mr C regarding his attendance, overall, the communication was reasonable as the progress reports correctly recorded that he had not attended as he should have. Mr C should have been aware of his obligations to attend, and there was an expectation on him to raise the very difficult circumstances which had impacted on his ability to attend meetings.

Overall, the communication was reasonable, Mr C confirmed he understood his obligations with respect to attendance at the subsequent hearing regarding his appeal, and the decision to remove him from his studies was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university had failed to take reasonable action to inform students of class cancellations and failed to provide adequate alternative provision for the teaching that was not delivered due to industrial action. We found that the university had provided information about class cancellations as early as it could using the agreed internal messaging system for students. We found that the question of whether the proposed alternative provision was adequate to meet the needs of students was a question of academic judgement and was not something SPSO could investigate. Mr C had not raised the practical difficulties of attendance with the university, however, the university had made reasonable provision for the teaching that had not been provided due to industrial action. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the university's handling of a late application they made for extenuating circumstances after their personal circumstances impacted on their attendance at university. C considered that, in handling their application, the university had failed to follow their procedures, failed to communicate clearly and accurately, and failed to ensure their appeal guidelines were clear.

We found that the university had departed from their normal procedures on a number of occasions, but to the benefit of C, allowing for additional late appeals than were required by the regulations. On balance, we considered that the university had communicated clearly and accurately, despite incorrectly suggesting a request for additional information had been made at one stage. We also considered that their appeal guidelines were reasonably clear, given the complex subject matter and academic audience, and were encouraged by the support made available to students wishing to appeal, as well as the procedures for reviewing guideline content. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the investigation of an alleged incident was not performed appropriately. C had been involved in the activities of a voluntary organisation which was commissioned to provide a service on behalf of the council. This organisation investigated the incident after C complained that a member of staff had lied about what happened.

We found that the organisation had provided an appropriately detailed statement of their reasons for not upholding C's complaint. Whilst C was unhappy that they were not interviewed as part of the process, we noted that there was no requirement for this under the complaint procedure and we did not find failings in this respect. We considered that the investigation was performed appropriately and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that their complaints about the bullying of their child had not been properly investigated by the school they attended. They felt their child had been made to feel that they were at fault and that in respect of two separate incidents, the school's investigation had been inadequate and had failed to follow the correct procedure. Mr and Mrs C also felt their complaint to the council about this had not been properly investigated and there had been no meaningful scrutiny of the school's actions.

It was explained to Mr and Mrs C that we could not re-investigate the claims of bullying, or determine whether bullying had taken place. We could look at whether the correct procedures were followed by the school and subsequently the council in response to the concerns Mr and Mrs C had raised.

We found that there was a clear record of Mr and Mrs C's reports of incidents of bullying. The school had detailed the action it took to investigate the incidents and was able to provide evidence to support its decisions. This was in line with the council's anti-bullying policy. We found that the council's investigation had considered all the available evidence and that the decision it had reached was reasonable and proportionate. We did not uphold either complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a new development. Mr C said that the council did not undertake an independent transport assessment, and did not fully take into account the numerous objections raised, particularly about traffic and road safety. Mr C said that the council used the wrong guidance in assessing the traffic capacity of the road, and did not take into account relevant Scottish Government policy.

The council said that the consultation responses were considered in detail in the report of handling, and they also met with objectors (including Mr C) to discuss his concerns. They said that the relevant policies had been taken into account, and the guidance used to assess road capacity was appropriate.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found evidence that the written consultation responses had been taken into account, and objectors (including Mr C) also had the opportunity to speak to the planning committee who made the decision. We considered that the guidance used to assess traffic capacity was appropriate, and there was evidence that the council had also taken into account relevant Scottish Government policy. While the transport assessment was carried out by the developer (not the council), this is standard practice, and the council had agreed the scope and reviewed the result. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.