Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application for a waste management facility. Mr C believed that the council had not followed relevant legislation and procedures in dealing with the application as an urgent matter at a meeting of the full council and had unreasonably allowed costs and the business case to be introduced as material considerations in the determination of the application. Following the council's decision to approve the application, Mr C corresponded with a senior member of council staff who he considered had unreasonably refused to answer his questions.

We found that, as required by the relevant legislation, in the minutes of the council meeting the council had recorded the reasons for the convenor being of the opinion that the application should be considered as a matter of urgency and that the procedures Mr C had referred to had not been relevant in the circumstances of the consideration of the application. We found that it was reasonable, in the context of the application, for costs to have been introduced as material considerations. We could see no evidence that the business case had been introduced as a material consideration. We also considered that the senior member of staff's response to Mr C had effectively answered his questions. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association had failed to take adequate steps to address cold and damp in her property. She also said that they had failed to handle an insurance claim properly and that they had not responded to her complaints approriately.

We found that Mrs C wanted us to investigate issues with the association dating back a number of years and it was explained to her that this was not possible. We found that Ms C's latest complaint had been responded to fully and timeously, including a meeting with the association's Depute Director. Some of the issues Ms C was raising pre-dated the introduction of the model complaints handling procedure, and the association were able to evidence that their practice and policy had changed substantially in this regard. The association acknowledged delays in the handling of Ms C's insurance claim, however, they were able to show that these were down to failings on the part of the insurance company and the length of time which had passed before Ms C made the claim. The investigation showed that the association had pursued the claim diligently, including raising formal complaints about the delay. Overall we found the association had acted reasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the practice had failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment. She had reported to her GP that she was feeling down since the death of a relative and that she had self harmed. She was also concerned about a mouth infection. Mrs C said that the GP showed no interest, telling her to attend a dentist for the mouth problem and that she should wait for contact from the mental health services, who were already in contact with Mrs C. The GP told Mrs C that it was her responsibility to chase up the mental health services.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that it was appropriate for the GP to have referred Mrs C to her dentist as it would not be within a GP's remit to treat patients with dental problems. We also found that, when Mrs C attended the GP, there was no clinical indication for an immediate referral to the mental health services. The department within the mental health services which Mrs C was already attending operated a self-referral facility and there was no need for the GP to make a formal referral. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late grandfather (Mr A) at Ninewells Hospital. Mr A was admitted to hospital and treated for sepsis (a blood infection). It was initially thought that this was caused by a chest infection but investigation showed that the source was Mr A's gallbladder. Mrs C complained that staff had not listened to family concerns about the source of the infection and that this had affected his treatment. Mrs C was concerned that the placement of a drain or other treatment was unreasonably delayed and that an appropriate scan had not been done. Mrs C considered that a different approach could have prevented Mr A's death.

We took independent advice from a consultant interventional radiologist (a clinician who would place a drain in the gallbladder) and a consultant physician (a senior doctor). We found that Mr A had received appropriate treatment and investigation of his symptoms. The adviser indicated that staff were aware that the gallbladder could be the source of infection and that there were no unreasonable delays in the particular circumstances of Mr A's case. We considered that earlier placement of a drain would not have resulted in a different outcome for Mr A. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support service, complained to us on behalf of her client (Mrs B) about the care and treatment Mrs B's late father (Mr A) received from the board.

Mr A requested medical assistance at his home as he was feeling breathless and asthmatic. An advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) attended Mr A in the early hours of the morning. After carrying out an assessment, the ANP concluded that Mr A's symptoms were consistent with pneumonia (an infection of the lungs). The ANP provided treatment and advised Mr A to visit the health centre later that day for further review.

When Mr A presented at the health centre, his condition was noted to have worsened and he was subsequently referred to hospital. On arrival at the hospital Mr A suffered a cardiac arrest and died.

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably delayed in referring Mr A to hospital and that they should have requested an air ambulance rather than travel by ferry and road.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the ANP carried out a thorough assessment of Mr A's symptoms and that his diagnosis was appropriate. We found that it was not clinically indicated that an earlier referral to hospital was required. We also considered that the board's decision to transfer Mr A by ambulance on the ferry was safer and faster than an air ambulance. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.