Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Ms C complained that NHS 24 failed to provide her with an appropriate assessment of her condition and advice during a telephone call.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the questions asked by NHS 24 to assess Ms C's condition were reasonable and that there was no clinical indication for Ms C to be advised to attend A&E. We also noted that Ms  C was advised to see a pharmacist. We found that, ideally, Ms C should have been referred directly to the out-of-hours service, but it was not unreasonable or unsafe for Ms C to be advised to see a pharmacist. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably delayed in diagnosing secondary breast cancer. Following treatment for breast cancer, Mrs C underwent annual check-ups with a consultant surgeon where she complained of a lump and pain near her reconstructed breast (a breast that has been reshaped following a mastectomy (breast removal)). Mrs C said that these reports were not appropriately investigated.

We took independent advice from a specialist in breast cancer. We found that investigations were carried out when Mrs C first reported a lump near the reconstruction and that relevant guidelines did not recommend routine mammography (x-ray of the breast) of the reconstructed site and associated axilla (underarm). We considered that the board had practised within the national recommendations and Mrs C was followed up and examined regularly. We also found that when Mrs C presented with a new lump it was investigated and treated in a timely manner. We found that the standard of medical care was reasonable and there had not been an unreasonable delay in diagnosing the recurring cancer. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board's response to her complaint was unreasonable and contained many errors.

We found that the board's response was an accurate reflection of their records of Ms C's treatment. The board explained why they could not delete entries from Ms C's medical records, and added Ms C's handwritten note to the records to reflect her view of events.

The board acknowledged that they could have provided Ms C with better information and support to make informed choices about ongoing treatment, and said they were sorry for this. Ms C chose to get private treatment as she was unhappy with the treatment she had received from the board and wanted the board to pay for this. The board offered Ms C different treatment options and consultations with different doctors but Ms C declined this offer. The board's response explained why, under the circumstances, they could not pay for Ms C's private treatment.

We considered that the board's response to Ms C was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care provided to his wife (Ms A) during a home birth, in particular that two midwives did not attend at the same time.

We took independent advice from a midwife. We found that it was standard practice for one midwife to attend first and that the role of the second midwife is to assist in the event of an emergency requiring one-to-one care. We considered that there was no requirement for emergency care for either Ms A or their child, and therefore, no requirement for a second midwife to be present. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In the days after the birth, community midwives attended Mr C's home and following an incident, the board decided not to allow any further visits to Mr C's home if he was present. Mr C complained that this decision was unreasonable.

We found that the board's actions had been appropriate and the decision taken was reasonable based on the available information. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that a further risk assessment should be undertaken in the event of any future pregnancies, to review the requirement for the restriction to remain in place, and we fed this back to the board.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. He had attended as a day case for an Endoscopic Ultrasound Scan (EUS, a minimally invasive procedure to assess digestive and lung diseases) where a biopsy was taken. On the way home after the procedure Mr C became unwell and was taken to another hospital where he was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas). He was admitted for treatment and further deteriorated, and it was found he had ruptured his spleen which then had to be removed. Mr C felt that the EUS had not been carried out appropriately and that it had caused his health problems.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant surgeon. We found that the EUS had been performed appropriately but unfortunately Mr C had developed pancreatitis which is a rare but recognised complication of the procedure and there was no evidence of any failings during the procedure. Similarly, Mr C then developed a further rare complication of pancreatitis where his spleen ruptured which is usually as a result of infection or severe inflammation. We did not uphold the complaint.