Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was a student on a taught postgraduate course. He complained that he did not receive reasonable supervision during his dissertation research project. Specifically, Mr C felt that his supervisor should have emailed feedback to him, and should have intervened when he experienced difficulties with his project.

We found that Mr C did not raise any concerns about supervision during the course. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for raising concerns as soon as possible. While students were also responsible for developing a level of independence in their project and laboratory work, they should not hesitate to ask their supervisor for advice when necessary. In addition, students were responsible for arranging meetings with their supervisor at least every two weeks, if not weekly, and for keeping clear records of meetings with their supervisor. The handbook is clear in terms of student responsibilities and being proactive; and specifies the role of their supervisor in providing course-related support when asked.

We found no evidence that Mr C's supervisor failed to act in line with the course handbook. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a submission of an assignment to the university. Having submitted the assignment a year previously, and failed on that occasion, the university considered this to be his second submission of this work. When the second submission was also marked as a fail, Mr C was obliged to withdraw from his course, in line with university regulations.

Mr C complained that his second submission should not have been considered a second submission as his previous submission had been intended as a draft for feedback and his second submission had not been marked. We found that Mr C had not referred to his first submission as a draft until after he was aware it had been marked as a fail. We also found that he had not taken earlier opportunities to clarify that it had been intended as a draft. There was also evidence that the second submission had been marked. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C wanted to progress from his current prison to the open estate (OE), with a view to getting parole and being released. His prison's risk management ream (RMT) decided that Mr C should first progress to the national top end (NTE - accommodation for low-supervision prisoners nearing the end of medium to long sentences). Mr C felt that the decision to not approve his application for the OE was unreasonable and he brought his complaint to us.

Mr C felt that he was ready for progression to the OE and that he was not given a chance to prove he had changed. We found that the RMT did not doubt the sincerity of Mr C's belief that he was ready. However, in considering all the information available to them, the RMT decided that Mr C would be progressed to the NTE where he would be given a chance to prove he had changed. The reasoning for this was that the NTE was a structured and supportive environment in which Mr C could practice appropriate coping and problem solving strategies. If successful in the NTE, Mr C would improve his chance of getting parole. We did not find evidence that the prison's actions in progressing Mr C to the NTE rather than the OE were unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that they had failed to provide him with appropriate advice and support with respect to his housing and mental health concerns. In their response, the council explained their obligations with respect to housing matters and advised that, as Mr C had never presented as homeless or engaged with housing services, there was no service failing on their part. They acknowledged Mr C's circumstances and committed to provide a full assessment of Mr C's housing and mental health needs. Mr C was later evicted from his property and brought his complaint to us.

We agreed with Mr C that we would consider the actions and response of the council following receipt of his complaint and full disclosure of his circumstances. We considered the council had taken steps to try and offer Mr C advice and assistance with respect to his housing circumstances. The council had followed up on concerns with regard to Mr C's mental health and had made arrangements for a mental health social worker to meet with Mr C. However, this appointment was cancelled by Mr C at late notice.

We were satisfied that the council had taken appropriate steps to respond to Mr C's concerns, assess his circumstances and offer advice and access to the services which may be available to him. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's two children are primary school pupils. Mr and Mrs C reported concerns to the school about on-going issues involving their children and another child. They decided to move their children to another school. Mr and Mrs C complained to the council for failing to take reasonable action in response to incidents involving their children and for failing to investigate their complaint in a fair and balanced way. The council explained that the other child had additional needs and that their behaviour towards Mr and Mrs C's children was not intended to be malicious or designed to bully them. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with this response and brought their complaint to us.

We found that the school put in place the appropriate support to all children involved. We also noted that incidents involving the children were recorded and appropriate action was taken where necessary. With regards to the council's investigation of the complaint, we found that the council had appointed a teacher from another school as the investigating officer to ensure impartiality. We found the council's approach to their investigation to be well considered and reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that, following major infrastructure works to install a water pipeline, the council failed to ensure that a specific area of park was returned to an acceptable condition.

We found that, when the council were served notice of the works by the water company, they were told that after the works were completed the land would be reinstated to the council's satisfaction. Mr C felt that the area of the park he was concerned about had been changed and not returned to an acceptable condition. In the council's view, the reinstatement was sympathetic to the area where the works took place, and the council regarded reinstatement of the site as satisfactory. As it was the council's land, it was for them to be satisfied.

Although we appreciated that Mr C disagreed with the council's view, that disagreement was not evidence of an administrative failing by the council. There was no definition of what was regarded as satisfactory or acceptable condition, therefore, the matter came down to the professional judgement of council officers on whether the reinstatement was satisfactory. In the absence of evidence of an administrative failing, we could not question the council's decision. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs B) about the communication with Mrs B's husband (Mr A). Mr A suffered some stroke like symptoms and his GP referred him to the hospital for a scan to check if he had had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA or 'mini-stroke'). A doctor discussed the results of the scan with Mr A in an appointment at the TIA clinic, about two weeks after his initial symptoms. It was recorded that Mr A was at risk of a further stroke, and the doctor recommended that he take medication to reduce this. Mr A suffered a further stroke some months after this, and later died. Mrs B said that Mr A never told her about the results of the scan, and she queried whether he had fully understood this, given he was suffering from confusion. Mrs B felt it was unreasonable for the doctor to share this information with Mr A at an appointment he attended alone, and not with her.

We took independent advice from a consultant in general medicine and medicine for the elderly. We found that Mr A's confusion was temporary and that there was nothing in the records to suggest he was not able to understand the information given or that he needed support during the appointment. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We noted that the board had said that they had learned from the complaint and that they were changing the appointment letters for this clinic to suggest that patients may wish to bring someone with them.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late partner (Mr A) by the ambulance service. She felt that the service should have taken Mr A to hospital when they attended him and he was unwell with diarrhoea, because several days later Mr A was diagnosed with a perforated duodenal ulcer (when the lining of the stomach splits due to a sore).

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine who is involved in the training of paramedics and who works alongside them in the provision of pre-hospital care. We found that the ambulance service appropriately assessed Mr A and reasonably contacted an out-of-hours GP to further assess Mr A. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided by the ambulance service to her mother (Mrs A). Miss C raised concerns that the ambulance crew did not handle Mrs A's transfer to hospital appropriately. In particular, that she had been dropped in the vehicle and that she had bruising on her back. Miss C also complained that the ambulance services' investigation and response to her complaint were unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a registered nurse who is experienced in moving and handling issues. We found that based on the paramedic records, staff undertook the handling and transfer of Mrs A appropriately. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we found that there was no evidence of factual inaccuracy in the complaints response from the ambulance service, and that they had apologised for the delay in providing the response. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Following an x-ray of her spine, Mrs C's GP made a referral for a DEXA scan (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan - a scan which is used to measure bone density). This referral, and a further referral, were rejected by the board as Mrs C did not meet the criteria. Mrs C was unhappy with this decision and complained to the board. The board said that because DEXA uses ionising radiation and they were required to assess whether the radiation detriment was outweighed by the benefit of receiving the scan. The board said that the referral criteria require a patient to have a predicated fracture risk of 10%, and since Mrs C's calculated risk was lower than this she did not meet the referral criteria.

We took independent advice from a general medical adviser. We found that the board's referral criteria were based on appropriate national guidance, and we were satisfied that it was reasonable not to offer Mrs C a DEXA scan as she did not meet the criteria. We did not uphold the complaint.