Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the practice’s management of his longstanding bladder and penile problems. He was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate (a gland in the male reproductive system) and underwent a surgical procedure. This was followed by further surgery to address a complication. After an initial improvement, his symptoms returned. He also began experiencing a lot of penile pain and irritation, for which he was referred to dermatology (the area of medicine concerned with the skin). Mr C complained that the practice failed to arrange appropriate investigations and treatment in response to his symptoms, including delays in referring him to urology (the area of medicine concerned with the male and female urinary-tractt, as well as the male reproductive organs) and prolonged ineffective treatment with antibiotics and creams.

We took independent advice from a GP who considered that Mr C’s symptoms were appropriately managed by the practice. We identified two occasions where earlier referrals to urology might reasonably have been considered. However, we did not find that the delays in referring to urology materially impacted on Mr C’s ongoing issues or the outcome for him. We considered that the practice appropriately managed Mr C's bladder and penile symptoms and did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided to his wife (Mrs A) when she was an in-patient at Victoria Hospital. Mr C complained that the board failed to appropriately adjust her medication, that they did not provide her with reasonable physical rehabilitation, and that they unreasonably assessed her as needing a higher level of at home care, which Mr C said delayed Mrs A's discharge from hospital.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment during her admission for day surgery at Queen Margaret Hospital. Following a procedure to remove her gallbladder, Mrs C was deemed to be fit to be discharged the same day. A number of days later she became unwell and was diagnosed with a serious infection.

Mrs C raised concern about whether the possibility of infection could have been foreseen and the decision to discharge her on the same day. She questioned why antibiotics were not prescribed and raised concern about the level of information she was given prior to discharge.

We took independent advice from a consultant upper gastrointestinal surgeon (a surgeon who specialises in the upper gastrointestinal tract which includes the gall bladder, liver, pancrease, oesophagus, stomach and small bowel). We found that there was no evidence of failings in the surgery provided to Mrs C. We found that there was no evidence of an active infection at the time Mrs C was discharged, and that it was reasonable, and in line with national guidelines, not to prescribe antibiotics. We did not consider that there was a reason to admit Mrs C overnight and were satisfied that the board had provided appropriate information to Mrs C prior to discharge. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care her daughter (Miss A) received at Midpark Hospital. Miss A has Asperger’s (a form of autism, in which people may find difficulty in social relationships and in communication) and suffers from depression, attention deficit disorder and personality disorder. She was admitted informally to the hospital for assessment and help. Mrs C complained that both the standard of psychiatric care and mental health nursing care Miss A received was unreasonable. Mrs C raised a number of concerns in relation to communication and the management, supervision and diagnosis of Miss A.

We took independent advice from a psychiatrist and a mental health nurse. We found that the standard of psychiatric care and mental health nursing in relation to communication, management, supervision and diagnosis was reasonable. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the care and treatment provided to her by the board was unreasonable. After having four wisdom teeth removed, Mrs C said that she suffered significant pain, but that clinicians failed to recognise this and treat her appropriately. Mrs C later required emergency care and was admitted to hospital, where she felt that clinicians were insufficiently prepared to discuss her care.

We took independent advice from a consultant oral and maxillofacial consultant (a doctor who specialises in treating diseases and injuries to the mouth, jaws, face and neck). We found that, whilst there was no doubt that Mrs C had been in a lot of pain following the removal of her wisdom teeth, the care and treatment she had received had been appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this element of Mrs C's complaint. However, we did feedback to the board that they may wish to reflect on their interaction with Mrs C, as it was clear that she felt her concerns had been dismissed by them.

Mrs C also complained that the way the board dealt with her complaint was unreasonable. We found that the complaint was handled reasonably, and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the charges due for water at his business premises. He was unhappy that Clear Business Water took so long to contact him and then that the charges were too high. This was mainly due to meter readings which showed a high level of consumption that were not in keeping with the small number of facilities on site.

Clear Business Water agreed that the consumption was unusually high and that this should be investigated. They checked the meter for a fault but no issues were found. They asked Scottish Water to check if there was a shared meter where someone else could have been using the same supply point but this was found not to be the case. Clear Business Water suspected a possible leak and asked Mr C if any had been identified or fixed. Mr C confirmed that this was not the case, so Clear Business Water agreed to monitor the next few invoices to see if the readings remained high. The readings returned to normal and therefore Clear Business Water concluded that there was no leak. As they had explored all potential options, they concluded the balance was due as the water had passed through the meter.

Summary

Mr C, who had a long term medical condition, complained that the university unreasonably failed to put in place agreed reasonable adjustments for him when he was a student there. Mr C said that the university failed to comply with their duty to provide him with appropriate support and did not take into account how his medical condition affected him.

We found that the university had an appropriate policy and processes in place for supporting students with declared disabilities at the time Mr C studied there. We also considered that there was evidence that the university was responsive to the support Mr C required and the concerns he raised, and took reasonable steps to provide him with support and to put in place agreed reasonable adjustments. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C submitted a lost property claim to the prison service, alleging that some items of his property had gone missing after he handed his laundry bag in to the prison laundry. Mr C complained to us about the way the prison service handled his lost property claim, and about their handling of his complaint.

We found that Mr C's lost property claim had been handled appropriately. The prison service accepted that Mr C's kitbag had not been returned from the laundry, and had initially offered compensation for a lost t-shirt and lost shorts. They refused to compensate him for the loss of branded boxer shorts, saying they considered these items disposable once in use and explaining that they do not itemise them on prisoner's property cards so cannot track them as they do with other property. After Mr C escalated his complaint and it was investigated further, it became apparent that the t-shirt and shorts had in fact been handed out two months after he submitted his claim. The offer of compensation was therefore retracted.

Mr C said that the prison service had failed to record the number of pairs and brand of boxer shorts handed in, which he said was contrary to prison policy. We thought that the prison service could not reasonably be expected to itemise and note the brand of all items of underwear being handed into prisons, and we considered that their position was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the complaints handling, the prison service had accepted some shortcomings in the original complaints response. Other than this, we found that they had responded within prescribed timescales and had given clear reasons for their decisions. We, therefore, did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably determined that he owed them rent arrears after leaving his tenancy. Mr C was part of a joint tenancy, having joined the existing tenancy of other people who lived in a council flat. Mr C said that the arrears had arisen due to council errors in the existing tenancy, such as charging for insurance that was not needed, and not notifying the existing tenants of a rent increase.

We found no evidence that the existing tenants notified the council that they did not need insurance. We noted that all tenants were liable to pay rent at the increased rate and that the tenancy agreement was clear that when the other joint tenants left and Mr C remained at the property, the tenancy continued. The council's procedure, in relation to former tenants' arrears, stated that the remaining tenant was liable for all outstanding arrears. In this case, Mr C was the remaining tenant. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C owned a flat in a tenement building. The council also owned flats in the building, and Mr C believed that a council tenant had damaged the communal front door and entry system. Mr C thought that the council were responsible for repairing the damage and covering the costs. He complained to us that the council had unreasonably charged him for a share of the repair costs.

We found that no one actually witnessed who was responsible for the damage. The council explained to Mr C that, unless there were any witnesses, it was very difficult to prove who caused the damage. We saw no evidence, such as legislation or policy, to support Mr C's belief that the council were responsible for paying for damage to communal areas that was allegedly caused by one of their tenants.

All owners have duties and responsibilities in respect of repairs and maintenance of shared parts of property, normally set out in title deeds. As owners, both Mr C and the council likely shared responsibility for communal areas. Given this, it was reasonable for the council to conclude that private owners, such as Mr C, should bear a proportion of the repair costs and be invoiced accordingly. We saw no evidence that Mr C was not responsible for paying a share of common repairs.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.