Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment which her daughter (Miss C) received at Borders General Hospital. Miss C had injured her hand, and nerve conduction studies showed there was evidence of nerve damage. Mrs C felt that there was a delay by the consultant in treating the injury and that the option of surgery should have been considered.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon (a specialist in the treatmentof diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that the consultant had reached a diagnosis of brachial neuritis (pain or loss of function in a nerve) which was reasonable and that it was appropriate to treat the condition conservatively rather than with surgery. It was also noted that there was an improvement in Miss C's condition. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the university had failed to take into account all relevant information during the appeals process. Having reviewed the evidence, we were satisfied that all of the evidence was considered in line with university procedures during the appeals process. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council failed to deal properly with a development on land adjacent to that which Mr A owned. Mr C said that the council failed to carry out a traffic impact assessment (TIA), to confirm if a road was adopted and to deal with his complaint properly.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council were entitled as a roads authority to exercise their discretion over requesting updates to the TIA. In addition, the council had imposed a planning condition to regulate traffic flow. We also found that the council had provided Mr C and Mr A with all the information they were legally required to hold and they had acted reasonably. We considered that the council could demonstrate that they had responded reasonably to Mr C's complaint, and that his disagreement with the council's decision was not evidence of maladministration. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow relevant procedures after an incident occurred at her child's (Child A) school. Mrs C was concerned that an ambulance and the police were not called immediately after the incident, and that appropriate support was not in place for Child A's return to school.

We found that it was a discretionary decision for the council on whether to call the emergency services based on their assessment of the situation at the time. We did not find evidence of an administrative or procedural failure on the part of the council which would lead us to question their decisions. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to significantly increase fees for musical tuition. He considered the council had not followed due process, in that there had been insufficient consultation on the decision, or assessment of the impact the decision would have.

We found that the council had held a number of public consultation meetings relating to their proposed budget and that there was recorded evidence to show that musical tuition was raised at some of these. We also found that they had carried out an appropriate equality impact assessment on the decision, which did not highlight any equality concerns. Overall, we were satisfied that the council had reasonably complied with their policies and procedures before reaching the decision. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of aspects of the authority's handling of a planning application, their discharge of various conditions on the planning application, and their failure to take enforcement actions on breaches of planning conditions.

We took independent planning advice on the complaints. We found that the authority had followed the appropriate guidance and legislation in all aspects of the complaints and that there was no evidence of maladministration in the way they had taken various discretionary decisions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a reasonable level of housing support. Mr C lives in sheltered accommodation and had experienced some significant problems with his property since moving there. Mr C said that the Sheltered Housing Officer (SHO) was not on site enough and felt that he should not have to pay the housing support charge. After we became involved, the council met with Mr C to try to resolve his complaint, and provided apologies for the problems he had experienced with his tenancy.

In their response to our enquiry, the council said that a breakdown of the care and support charges was clearly itemised on the Tenancy Agreement Mr C had signed. They also explained that the SHO was not on site all of the time but should be available to respond on the telephone if called upon. They also said that when Mr C moved into sheltered housing he requested not to have contact with a SHO. Based on the available evidence, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C had also complained about the tone of some of the council's complaint correspondence. While we acknowledged that Mr C was upset by some of the content of the correspondence, we noted that the council are entitled to seek to limit communication where a matter has already exhausted their complaints process. We found that the council's handling of the complaint had been reasonable and therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that some of their email correspondence with Mr C could have been more sensitively worded and we fed this back to the council.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association imposed restrictions on his contact with their services under their unacceptable actions policy. The restrictions stopped Mr C from contacting the association directly and required him to nominate a third party representative to communicate on his behalf. Mr C complained that these restrictions were unreasonable and that the association failed to make reasonable adjustments on account of his specific needs and disability.

We found that there was reasonable evidence to support the housing association's decision to place restrictions on Mr C's communication. They acknowledged that they could have improved their communication with Mr C and they have already taken steps to address this. However, we were satisfied that the housing association responded appropriately to Mr C's requests for reasonable adjustments. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A contacted the partnership to request a self-directed support assessment. A number of efforts were made to arrange a meeting to complete the assessment, however, after a number of months the partnership expressed concerns about the difficulty in progressing the assessment. They advised Ms A that her case would be suspended until a later date so that the case worker could progress other work. Ms A complained that the partnership failed to make reasonable adjustments in light of her communication needs. Ms A said that she wanted the partnership to fund her preferred interpreter service.

We took independent equalities advice. We found that the partnership made an interpreter available for meetings and made reasonable efforts to accommodate all those that Ms A wished to have in attendance at meetings. We also found that the partnership permitted Ms A to use her own preferred interpreter, however, we did not consider they were required to fund that service as they had already made a service available. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board's neurology (the branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the nervous system) department had unreasonably delayed in diagnosing his epilepsy (a neurological disorder). Mr C was initially diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (a medical condition of unknown cause, with fever, aching, and prolonged tiredness and depression) and said that he was referred to the neurology department on many occasions over a number of years but stayed with this diagnosis. Several years later, Mr C's diagnosis was changed to functional weakness and, several years after this, it was identified that he had epilepsy. Mr C considered that his epilepsy should have been identified earlier.

We took independent advice from a consultant neurologist. We found that it was unlikely that the symptoms Mr C initially had were due to epilepsy. He subsequently did develop symptoms that fitted epilepsy, but it was reasonable that it took some time to make a diagnosis, as his symptoms were relatively infrequent. We found that the sequence of investigations undertaken were reasonable and that there were no failings in Mr C's care and treatment. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.