Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water had failed to resolve the flooding issues he was experiencing and that they had not handled his complaints reasonably.

We found that Mr C was experiencing more than one type of flooding. Scottish Water had responded reasonably to his concerns, but one source of flooding to the front of his property was due to storm events overloading the sewerage network and could not be easily resolved. Scottish Water were working with the council to address this.

Mr C was also experiencing problems caused by a drain at the rear of his property. We found that this was not part of the public network and although Scottish Water had carried out work on it previously, they would not adopt it into the public network. We considered that Scottish Water's position was reasonable and that they had offered to provide assistance and support to Mr C, even though they were not obliged to. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A). Miss A resides in a privately owned care home. Mr C complained that the council failed to assess the suitability of another service user before placing them in the care home, and later failed to remove the service user from the care home in a timeous way when issues became apparent.

We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions of the council in assessing the service user's suitability for the care home were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also found that, whilst it took some time for the service user to be removed from the care home once issues were identified, the council had done all they reasonably could to minimise the issues and move the service user in a prompt manner. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the council handled two planning applications for a new house being built near to their home. They also complained that the actions of council officers at a planning meeting had been unreasonable, as the council officers had met with the applicant.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did find some omissions in the report of handling relating to the initial planning application, and we provided feedback to the council about this. However, on the whole, we concluded that the council's handling, processing and assessment of the planning applications were reasonable. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Regarding the meeting council officers had with the applicant, we found that this happened in order to check some information about the application. They did this at the committee meeting to avoid the need for the decision on the application to be deferred to another meeting. We considered that this was reasonable, and we noted that the council had apologised to Mr and Mrs C for not explaining why the discussion was taking place at the meeting and for not including them in the discussion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent, that the council failed to arrange a suitable care package within a reasonable time period. Mr A spent a long time in a care home despite only ever being a temporary resident. This had resulted in excessive costs being incurred by Mr A. Mr C said that Mr A should only have to pay the respite charge, which was substantially lower.

We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant legislation and guidance. Mr A had declined to co- operate with the council by allowing an assessment of his finances, resulting in his accommodation being charged at the standard rate. We also found that although Mr A had found the experience distressing, the council had made reasonable efforts to recruit more staff to cover his care needs and that his return home had not been unreasonably delayed by failings on the part of the council. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the council failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about bullying and harassment of her child (Child A). Miss C attended a meeting with the school and the police to discuss her concerns, however, she felt that the head teacher was dismissive and did not appreciate the seriousness of the concerns she was raising. Miss C also complained that the council did not interview relevant witnesses and felt that the council were only accepting the school's account of what happened during the meeting.

The council confirmed that they were continuing to work with the police and that they were committed to supporting Child A. The council also provided details of the different support that was put in place.

We did not find any evidence to support Miss C's account of what was said during her meeting with the head teacher. We considered that the school had acted reasonably by putting in appropriate support for Child A. We also found that the council's investigation of Miss C's complaint was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients, who are the residents of a housing development. During an inspection, an environmental regulator found that the sewage from the development was not discharging to the authorised location. The residents were faced with the cost of carrying out works to fix this. Mr C raised concerns that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations, as they issued a completion certificate for the housing development without checking that the sewage outlet discharged to the authorised location.

We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that the council was only responsible for the development's drainage system up to the point that it connected to the development's private sewage treatment plant. We found that the sewage outlet was solely a matter for the environmental regulator. We found that the council appropriately told the developers that they would need to get the regulator's consent for the sewage outlet and that they would need to comply with the conditions set by the regulator in that consent. We found that it was reasonable the council issued a completion certificate without checking or confirming the location of the sewage outlet, as they had no responsibility to do so. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to transfer a drain serving his property to a water provider. He also complained that they had failed to keep proper records and that they had failed to handle his complaints correctly.

We found that the council did not have a statutory obligation to transfer private drains to the water provider. We noted that they had asked the water provider to adopt the drain in question into the national network, but they declined to do so. We considered that the council had no obligation to keep records relating to private drains and had responded to Mr C's complaints reasonably. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a number of matters. Firstly, they complained that the association failed to take reasonable and appropriate action in relation to their reports of anti-social behaviour. We found that the association had taken some action in response to these complaints but, following police and court involvement, had delayed in taking further action until these proceedings were complete. We considered this action to be reasonable.

Mr and Mrs C's second complaint related to how the association addressed allegations that their neighbours were parking in a manner that caused a nuisance. Mrs C stated that the neighbours repeatedly parked their vehicles in a position that made access to her driveway difficult or impossible. We considered that the association had investigated this matter appropriately and taken action that is reasonable and proportionate, based on the evidence available to them.

Mr and Mrs C's third complaint related to their neighbours' CCTV. They state that the CCTV has been used to monitor them and that their neighbours do not have the necessary registration to use it. We found that the association had taken action, including asking the neighbours to change the position of the CCTV, so it does not take in Mr and Mrs C's property. We considered the actions taken by the association to be appropriate and proportionate, given the circumstances at the time.

Mr and Mrs C's final complaint related to the association's decision to place restrictions on their communication with them. The association acknowledged that their correspondence in relation to this had not been clear and issued a further letter to Mr and Mrs C clarifying this. We found that the association had explained their reasons for this restriction, explained the procedures put in place and provided details of the appeals procedure. We considered this action to be reasonable.

We did not uphold any of Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the advice he received from NHS 24 staff when he called for assistance for a dental problem. He spoke to a dental nurse initially who advised that he should take painkillers and contact his dentist when the practice opened later that morning and ask for an urgent appointment. Mr C was unhappy with this advice and asked to speak to another dental nurse and again remained dissatisfied with the advice given. The telephone calls to NHS 24 became challenging and staff terminated a call as Mr C was deemed to have been offensive.

We took independent advice from a dentist. We found that the advice that Mr C should attend his own dentist later that morning was appropriate. It was also appropriate that he was given advice to take painkillers and that there was no medical need for an emergency appointment. We also found that Mr C's behaviour during the calls was challenging for all concerned and that it was not unreasonable for the staff to have terminated the call when it was clear that nothing further would be achieved. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment she received from the ambulance service. Mrs C said that she told the paramedic she had chest pains and had vomited a lot of blood. She said the paramedic refused to carry out a proper assessment and returned to their vehicle. Mrs C dialled 999 again and the paramedic returned to the house. The paramedic spoke to Mrs C's GP and it was arranged that she should make an appointment at the practice to discuss her health problems. Mrs  C made a further call to the ambulance service 12 hours later and was then taken to hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that there was a difference in recall between the paramedic and Mrs C about the amount of blood she had lost whilst vomiting. The paramedic had recorded that Mrs C had only coughed up a small streak of blood. If the paramedic's recall was the more accurate, then there was no requirement to take her to hospital. However, had she vomited a lot of blood as had described in the later call for assistance then a transfer to hospital was appropriate. While there was some contact between the paramedic and Mrs C's GP, the GP's phone note did not mention any blood loss.

On balance, we decided that in view of the record of little blood loss and the facts that the paramedic had made contact with the GP practice, Mrs C did not seek additional medical assistance for a period of 12 hours; and that her symptoms at that time were vastly different from before, that the actions of the paramedic were reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.