Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the dentist unreasonably failed to diagnose the cause of his facial pain. Mr C said that he attended his dentist but was told there was nothing wrong with his teeth. He continued to see his GP about his facial pain and several medical investigations were carried out. Fourteen months after Mr  C had attended his dentist, he saw a specialist who found out that he had a long- standing infection.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that the treatment decisions and management of Mr C was reasonable in the circumstances, as was the failure to diagnose an infection. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) by the practice. She complained that Mrs A's symptoms and medical and dental history were largely ignored. Mrs C felt that Mrs A's life was cut short as a result of poor care and treatment by the practice.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A by the practice was of a reasonable standard. We found no evidence that the practice had failed to act on abnormal results or that the practice failed to arrange appropriate investigations and referral to secondary care. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the medical care and treatment her late mother (Mrs A) received when she attended the Victoria Hospital. In particular that more could have been done by the cardiac service to investigate Mrs A's symptoms and diagnose her.

We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist (a doctor who specialises in the heart and blood vessels). We found that there had been some shortcomings in relation to aspects of communication, however, this did not impact on Mrs A's condition. We found that overall the care and treatment Mrs A received had been reasonable. We also noted that the timing of the cardiac tests less than two weeks after a referral from a GP demonstrated good practice and a responsive organisation. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary. Mr C received an injection into his hip for pain relief but the needle was placed in the wrong place causing Mr A pain. Another consultant had to remove the needle and gave a further injection in another place. Mr C said that he continues to suffer pain from the procedure and that he had been unable to return to work.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic consultant (a specialist in the treatment of diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system). We found that adequate consent had been obtained from Mr C and that he was advised of the potential risks and the possibility that the procedure may not be successful. We noted that Mr C had suffered a rare but recognised complication of the procedure. The supervising consultant had to take over when difficulties were encountered and this is normal practice. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the university did not inform her of an additional fee for her course. The university explained that the information supplied was for the postgraduate taught tuition fees but students are informed that an additional fee is required if the masters dissertation is completed. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the university reasonably communicated with Mrs C that further fees were due in order for her to complete the masters dissertation for her course. At the point she was accepted on the course, a link to funding information was provided which explained the separate fees for the taught element and the masters dissertation. When the university responded to Mrs C's query about the fees for the full-time postgraduate course, the information provided was accurate and detailed the cost of the taught element of the course. However, it would have been good practice to have provided further information about the fees for the masters dissertation, as it was relevant to the majority of students embarking on the course. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint but provided feedback to the university on good practice.

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.