Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the university's handling of his academic appeal was unreasonable. Mr C said that university staff marking his work were biased against him because of a previous disciplinary matter.

We found that the university acted in line with their Academic Appeals Policy and Procedure. In their response to Mr C's academic appeal, the university explained why Mr C's supervisor, who had given evidence in relation to the disciplinary matter, had been involved with the marking due to the need for supervisors to provide specific comments. They also explained that other staff, who had no involvement with the previous disciplinary matter, had been allocated to mark his work to ensure impartiality. In addition, an external examiner had reviewed Mr  C's work and approved the mark awarded, as well as the overall degree classification.

We found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council had unreasonably responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council responded to and investigated her reports of anti-social behaviour but found that the noise witnessed was everyday living noise, and therefore, was not something they could take formal action against. The council suggested mediation as an option to resolve the conflict. We noted that the council followed their process in responding to Ms C's complaints, with the exception of closing the cases in writing and categorising the complaints. The council made contact with Ms C after each report, were clear about potential outcomes, liaised with relevant agencies and investigated Ms C's reports of anti-social noise. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

We did provide feedback to the council regarding closing cases in writing and categorising complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to follow their procedures in response to reports that a tenant had breached their tenancy agreement due to anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had taken steps in response to the reports they had received. The council were reliant on neighbours to inform them of incidents at the time so that could build an accurate picture of the type and frequency of behaviour occurring. In the absence of further reports and evidence of anti-social behaviour, the council was not able to take legal action to recover the tenancy. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the council failed to investigate and act on her reports of antisocial behaviour in her building.

We found that Ms C phoned the council a number of times to report what she felt to be antisocial behaviour relating to a neighbour. The council gave Ms C advice on what to do about reporting specific incidents of antisocial behaviour when they were actually happening. When Ms C escalated her concerns, the council investigated her reports of antisocial behaviour by discussing the situation with Ms C, gathering evidence from other relevant parties, and assessing that evidence to determine that, in the council's view, there was no antisocial behaviour. While Ms C disagreed with that view, her disagreement was not, of itself, evidence of an administrative failing by the council.

Ms C also complained about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that the council's handling of her complaint was in keeping with their complaints handling procedure, as they investigated and responded to the key points of her complaint.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C is a housing association tenant. There was a serious fire at her property a few years ago and the repairs and refurbishment took some months. When she returned to the property she made complaints about various aspects of the repairs and refurbishment. The association accepted that windows had been incorrectly installed without vents and rectified this. A year later, Miss C experienced electrical issues and raised these with the association. They were resolved but Miss C complained about the time that it had taken to do this. She was also dissatisfied with the association's responses to her reports of electrical problems and brought her complaints to us.

We found that the association had reasonably repaired and refurbished her property and that she had been aware that some windows still had to be replaced when she decided to move back in to the property. We found no evidence to support Miss C's views that she had been promised the radiators would be replaced or that the radiators and walls had not been properly cleaned. We also found that the association had acted reasonably in responding to her reports of electrical problems. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C brought her nephew to live with her following a mutual agreement with his mother. Mrs C approached the partnership to enquire about kinship care assistance, however, she was advised that she was not eligible as she did not have a kinship care order in place. A few years later, Mrs C enquired again about kinship care assistance and she was advised that her nephew was not considered an eligible child as he was not at risk of becoming looked after (a  looked after child is a child under the care of the council). Mrs C complained that the partnership did not reasonably consider her request for kinship care assistance.

We took independent social work advice. We found that there were a number of family members providing support to Mrs C's nephew and his mother, and the child's father was also playing an active role in caring for him. We were satisfied that the partnership carried out an appropriate assessment and their decision that Mrs C was not eligible for kinship care assistance was reasonable. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that NHS 24 failed to provide appropriate assistance when she called them to raise concerns that her mother (Mrs A) had been discharged from hospital too early following a suicide attempt. She said that she had not received any advice or assistance and complained that she had only been able to speak to a call handler and not a clinician.

We took independent advice from a practitioner experienced in out-of-hours services. We found that NHS 24's handling of the call had been reasonable. The call handler contacted Mrs A, who had told them that she had been seen by psychiatry that day and had psychiatric follow-up arranged. The call handler also spoke to a senior nurse. We found that the advice provided to Ms C had been appropriate and it had been reasonable to advise her to contact Mrs A's GP practice at that time. We did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also complained about NHS 24's handling of her complaint. We found that this had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment which he received when he attended the Western General Hospital for reported left upper abdomen pain. He said he had advised staff that he was allergic to aspirin and penicillin but was prescribed diclofenac medication (pain relief) on discharge. When he returned home, Mr C took two further diclofenac tablets and experienced breathing difficulties. He attended his GP the following day who prescribed alternative pain relief. Given his allergies, he felt that the diclofenac should not have been prescribed.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant. We found that although diclofenac would not normally be prescribed for a patient allergic to aspirin it was not absolutely contraindicated and should be used with caution. We also found that diclofenac was a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication (NSAID) and Mr  C had advised the staff that he was able to tolerate some NSAIDs. We noted that Mr C had been given diclofenac whilst in hospital and that it had a good effect on his reported abdomen pain and he was given advice to seek further medical attention should his condition deteriorate following discharge. On balance, we found that it was reasonable for the doctor to have prescribed the diclofenac. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the lack of treatment which he received at St John's hospital. He had been referred to the mental health service by his GP for an assessment. Mr C complained that the board failed to carry out appropriate mental health assessments. He was also dissatisfied that the board would not arrange a further medical opinion.

We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist (a specialist in the diagnoses and treatment of mental illness). We found that Mr C was seen on two occasions by a doctor in training who discussed Mr C with a supervising consultant psychiatrist. There was evidence that thorough assessments were carried out on both occasions which resulted in a reasonable management plan. Mr C was then assessed by another consultant psychiatrist, who again carried out an appropriate assessment in view of Mr C's reported symptoms. The clinicians reasonably concluded that Mr C was not suffering from a diagnosable mental health disorder. We considered the assessments to be reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to a further medical opinion, we noted that Mr C had been assessed twice by a trainee doctor, under supervision of a consultant psychiatrist, and also by an additional consultant psychiatrist. Therefore, we found that it was not unreasonable that the board did not offer Mr C a further medical opinion. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care provided to his late mother (Mrs A) by staff at Wishaw General Hospital. Mrs A had attended the emergency department following a fall at home. She was observed for a few hours and discharged home. Mrs A fell again at home that evening and had to be readmitted to hospital where it was established that she had problems with the blood supply to her left leg. Mrs A was told that no further treatment could be given and she was commenced on palliative care. Mr C believed that the seriousness of his mother's condition should have been identified on the first attendance to hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that on the first attendance the staff carried out a thorough assessment, made appropriate investigations and reasonably concluded that Mrs A could be discharged home with follow-up by the hospital at home team. When Mrs A re- attended hospital, her observations were mostly normal and it was only after a further period of review that issues were identified which revealed a lack of blood supply to her left leg. We found that the staff could not reasonably have predicted that Mrs A would go on to have subsequent problems. We did not uphold the complaint.