Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment his late wife (Mrs A) received at A&E of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Mrs A had collapsed at home, and had suffered a fatal heart attack. Despite attempts at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), Mrs A died. The board maintained that appropriate tests and investigations were carried out when Mrs A suddenly deteriorated and that the cardiac arrest could not have been predicted.

We took independent advice from an emergency department consultant. We found that the staff involved had carried out appropriate assessments and investigations into a possible cause for Mrs A's collapse at home and that she was being monitored appropriately. While the results of investigations were being waited on, Mrs A suddenly deteriorated and staff were unable to save her life. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about a change in his pain medication and said that he suffered significant pain as a result.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the decision to change Mr C's pain medication was reasonable and that this was made following an appropriate and adequate assessment of his pain. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Care Inspectorate (CI) about the care provided to his late mother in a care home. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the CI's findings and complained further about their investigation. The CI confirmed that they were satisfied that their procedures were followed correctly.

We found that even though evidence could not be found to corroborate Mr C's complaints about his mother's care, the CI thoroughly investigated Mr C's complaints in line with their procedures. They carried out an unannounced visit to the care home, examined the care home records and interviewed all relevant witnesses. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to handle a planning appliction properly and to respond reasonably to complaints about the planning process. Mr C suggested that the council had produced an inaccurate report on the planning application, which had deliberately misled Planning Committee members. Mr C also complained that the council had attempted to improperly influence a statutory consultee by putting pressure on them in order to reverse their objection to the application. Mr C said the council had refused to correct this, even when presented with factual evidence to the contrary.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council had acted appropriately and that the report had provided an accurate summary of the application, the objections to it and the council's statutory duties. We found that the council had handled the application reasonably and that they had responded appropriately to the complaints they had received. The council did not dispute having contacted the statutory consultee, but said the reasons for this were appropriate. The advice we received agreed with this and we found no evidence that the council had attempted to unduly influence the consultation process. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C is a tenant of the council and following an inspection from his housing officer, he was advised that he had too many cats in his property and was instructed to reduce the number to three. Mr C complained that the council failed to provide a valid reason for why he should reduce the number of pets he has. He noted that his tenancy agreement did not specify a number.

The council said that they had received reports about the condition of Mr C's property from their repairs tradesmen and a neighbour. The housing officer had also carried out an inspection. The council explained that while the tenancy agreement does not specify the number of pets a tenant should have, it is at their discretion as a landlord, and their decision is based on reasonableness and a consideration of the size of the property.

We found that the council had adequate evidence to support their decision that Mr C should reduce the number of his pets in the form of reports from their repairs tradesmen, housing officers and a neighbour. We also noted that the council sought legal advice regarding their interpretation of the tenancy agreement and that this was good practice. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the decision to withdraw funding from her father's (Mr A) care home placement. The council believed Mr A had deliberately deprived himself of an asset in order to avoid paying fees. We had asked the council to review this decision; however, having done so, they upheld their original decision.

We found that the council acted reasonably in their application of the relevant guidance on charging for residential care. The council was able to evidence that they were not required to prove that deprivation of assets was the primary motive in the disposal of an asset. The council was only required to show that it was reasonable to conclude from the available evidence that the deprivation of assets could have been a motivation. We found that the council could have reasonably reached that conclusion from the evidence and their decision was, therefore, reasonable. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had taken an unreasonable amount of time to mark an advisory disabled parking space at his home, and that the councils handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the councils handling of both matters was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the partnership did not properly safeguard her children following an incident that involved her youngest child (Child A) being assaulted by an older child (Child B) during the summer holidays while under the care of a child care facility, specifically, that Child A came into contact with Child B some months later outside of Child A's school. In addition, her oldest child (Child C) also came into contact with Child B when they moved to secondary school.

In response to the complaint, the partnership explained that at that time, a resolution was reached in that a new route was negotiated to avoid Child A coming into contact with Child B. In addition, with regard to the concerns raised after Child C came into contact with Child B at secondary school, Child B was transferred to a different establishment.

We took independent advice from a social worker. Whilst we considered that there were some aspects of the support offered to Miss C around the time of the assault that could have been better, we did not consider that the partnership acted unreasonably. We found that it was not possible to ensure that there would never be contact in the community unless there was an order directing someone not to frequent a particular area or venue. We also considered that it would have been preferable if the partnership had considered that Child C might attend the same secondary school as Child B as part of their planning. However, given the time that had passed, and that there was no ongoing contact with social work, we considered this was not unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment her mother (Ms A) received at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital. Ms A had bilateral uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS - a type of 'keyhole' surgery where only very small cuts (incisions) are made to the body). Ms C was concerned about the length of time Ms A had to wait for surgery, that surgery was not the appropriate treatment and that further investigations were not carried out before the surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant in thoracic surgery (also known as cardiothoracic surgery. It is the field of medicine involving the surgical treatment of organs inside the chest). We found that all investigations necessary for surgery were performed according to the relevant guidelines and that the type of surgery was reasonable and performed within a reasonable length of time. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of a court appointed psychologist who interviewed him after he had been convicted of an offence.

In their response to the complaint the board set out the reasons why the court decided to appoint the psychologist. They also explained that specific information was required from Mr C so that the psychologist could prepare a report for the court, prior to Mr C being sentenced.

We found that the board investigated the complaint and clearly explained why the psychologist had to ask for the information. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.