Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that his pain medication had been stopped and said that he suffered significant pain as a result.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the decision to stop Mr C's pain medication was reasonable and he was reasonably followed up with, and offered appropriate alternatives, for his pain. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably stopped her visits with a family member who was also in prison. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is only entitled to receive a visit from another prisoner in exceptional circumstances. We found that the decision to stop the visits was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take and there was no evidence that they did not follow the correct process. Under our legislation, we cannot change or question a decision that has been made properly. We did not identify any failings by the SPS and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, prior to her parents accepting the offer of a tenancy at a residential accommodation run on behalf of the council, they were not adequately informed of housing support charges which were payable to the council, separate to the rent and service charges for the accommodation. Mrs C's position was that, if they had been made aware of these charges, her parents would never have accepted the tenancy given the level of cost. The council investigated and said that the potential for charges had been discussed and Mrs C and her parents were advised to seek advice regarding liability and any help with covering the costs. Whilst the council accepted that their communication of the charges and the level of the charges could have been clearer, they concluded that the offer letter issued to Mrs C and her parents was clear in highlighting additional charges were applicable. Mrs C was dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the council could have recorded more clearly the information provided and the extent of the discussion regarding charges. The council provided evidence of the changes they had made to the process, where prospective tenants are now provided with written documentation regarding the full extent of charges and asked to sign a disclaimer confirming this has been received. Whilst the communications could have been clearer, on the basis that the offer letter clearly highlighted the potential for additional charges and referenced information provided with the offer, this was sufficient notice for Mrs C and her parents to make further enquiries to establish the extent of their liability for charges. On this basis, we considered that the council had done enough to make Mrs C and her parents aware. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to reports that her child (Child A) was being bullied at school. We found that the council's bullying policy and guidance does not oblige the school to take specific actions in relation to pupils. It obliges them to take some action, based on the individual circumstances of the reported incident(s). The council have the discretion to decide what action they choose to take, whether to inform parents/carers, whether to liaise with other agencies and whether to implement wider school interventions. Having reviewed the action taken by the council, we were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their policy and guidance on bullying. We did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably acted in contravention of the title deeds of his property, that they had unfairly discriminated against him and his family and that they had failed to investigate his complaints over six months.

We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to resolve a boundary dispute between Mr C as a property owner and his neighbour, who was a council tenant. We could not determine whether the council had contravened the council deeds as this is not a matter we can consider. We found that council staff had not treated Mr C or his family unfairly, although we recognised that he and members of his family had found dealing with council staff distressing at times. We also found that the council had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaints with evidence they had followed their procedures correctly. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that there was a failure by the council to thoroughly investigate incidents involving her child (Child A) at their primary school. She outlined four separate incidents which she felt had not been investigated appropriately and felt that the council's complaint investigation was biased towards the school.

We found that a thorough investigation was carried out into each incident. We also considered that the council's complaint investigation into Mrs C's concerns was detailed and appropriate. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we suggested as feedback to the council that they may wish to consider whether having a policy or guidance regarding how incidents in school should be investigated and/or recorded would be of help to staff to ensure consistency within and across schools in their area.

Summary

Ms C complained that the partnership unreasonably carried out two welfare checks on her and her children. She further complained that they had unreasonably recorded that she had taken the children without disclosing their location to the children's school and that they had been documented as missing. Ms C also considered the partnership had failed to take her concerns about reported domestic abuse seriously.

We found that the social work department had a duty to satisfy themselves that the children were safe and well in accordance with legislation. We also found that it was reasonable for the social work department to document that the children were missing until the address they had been given was checked by the police. Finally, we found that the steps taken by the social work department in checking Ms C and her children were safe, after they had left the family home, indicated they had taken concerns about Ms C and her children's welfare seriously. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the partnership failed to take reasonable action regarding the installation of a ramp at his home, failed to provide him with reasonable support and failed to appoint him with a reasonable Self-Directed Support (SDS) budget to cover his needs.

We took independent advice from an occupational therapist and a social worker. We found that the partnership acted reasonably regarding the installation of the ramp at Mr C's home and that there was a reasonable level of communication with him about the installation of the ramp and the necessary planning approval required. We also considered that the partnership provided Mr C with reasonable support and the SDS budgets awarded to Mr C were reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the partnership about their response to adult support and protection concerns they raised in respect of their daughter (Ms A) who has additional needs and lives independently with support from a care provider. Mr and Mrs C said that they raised a number of concerns that Ms A was being financially abused and negatively influenced. The partnership said they considered that all reports and concerns raised were responded to and that they followed their Adult Support and Protection procedures correctly.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that there was adequate evidence that demonstrated that the partnership took the appropriate action in response to the concerns raised about Ms A. We identified that appropriate support was provided to Ms A and that the appropriate agencies were contacted to ensure that Ms A was properly supported. As we found no evidence that the partnership failed to respond appropriately to the adult support and protection concerns raised in respect of Ms A, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way NHS 24 managed a number of phone calls which he made to them reporting that he felt that he had something stuck in his throat. Mr C said that NHS 24 staff had initially referred him to the out-of-hours service where he spoke to a GP and was given advice to drink fizzy drinks. Mr C then contacted NHS 24 again as the problem had not resolved and subsequently an ambulance was despatched to take him to hospital. Mr C felt that NHS 24 staff failed to take his concerns seriously.

We took independent professional advice from an experienced nurse. We found that NHS 24 staff had recorded Mr C's symptoms appropriately and that his breathing was not compromised and initially made a referral that Mr C should be assessed by an out-of-hours service GP. When Mr C made further contact as his condition had not resolved, he stated that he felt he was choking and therefore arrangements were made for an ambulance to attend. We found that it was appropriate for NHS 24 staff to have referred Mr C to the other organisations in view of his symptoms reported during the telephone calls. We did not uphold the complaint.