Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the board had unreasonably refused to accept referrals for his child (child A) to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). There were concerns about child A's anxiety and that they possibly had symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Mr C felt that the board had not provided adequate reasons for the refusal and had based their decision on events of some years ago.

We took independent advice from an adviser in mental health services. We found that the board's decision that child A did not satisfy the criteria for CAMHS was reasonable. Whilst child A had displayed some symptoms, they were not persistent in nature and their condition was variable at times. We did not uphold the complaint. However, we provided the board with feedback that they should have provided Mr C with more clarity of the exact rasons why they felt a referral to the service was not appropriate at that time.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the medical practice had failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment when she reported problems with her mobility and that she was not sent for x-rays or scans in order to arrive at a diagnosis. Ms C had subsequently registered at a new practice where the staff quickly identified her problems and arranged x-rays which resulted in her undergoing two hip operations. Ms C felt the previous practice should have addressed her mobility problems a number of years ago.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. When Ms C reported hip pain, she had x-rays taken and was referred for physiotherapy and provided with painkillers. From then until Ms C left the practice, we found that she did not report any additional symptoms or that her pain had deteriorated or worsened and, as a result, there was no requirement for the practice to undertake further investigations. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C paid a small amount of his college course fees late in the academic year, while around 95% of the fees remained unpaid six weeks before the end of the course. At that point, the college told Mr C that he would have to pay the fees. When he failed to do so, the college passed the debt to a recovery agency. Mr C complained that the college unreasonably demanded that he pay his course fees and referred his debt to a recovery agency. He also complained about the college's handling of his complaint.

Mr C said that he had agreed a final payment plan with the college which they did not honour. We found that the college's record showed that Mr C made several different payment plans previously, but there was no evidence that he agreed the final payment plan. Mr C signed an enrolment form that committed him to abiding by college rules, being liable for payment of his course fees, and understanding that if he did not pay, the college would instruct a debt recovery agency to collect payment. Debt recovery information was also covered in the college's Student Fees and Debt Recovery Policy. The college gave Mr C several opportunities to pay until they passed his debt to the recovery agency.

In regards to complaints handling, we found that the college's response to Mr C's complaint referred to the evidence that they had gathered and provided him with a copy of this evidence where appropriate. The response dealt with the issues thoroughly and we found it to be reasonable.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow their policies and procedures before raising court action against him for recovery of rent arrears. He complained that the council had failed to take his family circumstances into account when deciding to raise court action against him.

We found that the council had followed their policies and procedures, with one minor exception for which the council had already apologised. Mr C had not made any contribution to his rent over more than two months, and although he had offered to pay some rent at the end of the third month of the tenancy, we found that the council were entitled to find this offer unreasonable. We also noted that the council had agreed to review the court action if regular payments were commenced. We did not find any evidence of maladministration and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the council about how the proceeds from the sale of her mother's house were apportioned between Mrs C's family and care home fees. The matter was considered by a complaints review committee (CRC), after which Mrs C brought her complaints to us.

Mrs C complained that the council handled the CRC unreasonably. She had concerns about the CRC panel's interaction with the social work representatives who attended the hearing and she felt that these interactions called the CRC panel's impartiality into question. The CRC procedure did, however, allow the panel to ask questions of those present at the CRC, which included Mrs C and the social work department. We did not consider the evidence indicated that the CRC was handled unreasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the council unreasonably failed to provide adequate reasons for the CRC's decision not to uphold her underlying complaint. Although we acknowledged that the report they had produced was concise, it did detail the two specific points of complaint that Mrs C had agreed to in advance of the hearing. We also felt that their explanation, while brief, was clear that they did not agree with the case Mrs C had put forward. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mrs A) that the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the Office of Public Guardian (OPG). Mrs A has power of attorney for her mother and contacted the council after her father died, to request a financial re-assessment for her mother. Mrs A completed a financial assessment form and recorded that her mother had had a property which she sold. The council requested information regarding the net proceeds of the property sale on a number of occasions, however, Mrs A failed to provide this information. After a number of attempts to obtain the information, the council reported an adult protection concern to social work which resulted in a referral to the OPG. Mr C believes the council acted unreasonably and brought his complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser confirmed that the council have a duty to raise an adult protection concern and to contact the OPG if the financial management of the adult’s capital is unknown. Therefore, we did not consider the council wrongly reported Mrs A to the OPG and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C applied to be kinship carers for a child related to them. A kinship care assessment was produced by the social work department and it recommended that Mr and Mrs C should not be approved as kinship carers. Mr and Mrs C complained that the content of the report and the recommendation made was unreasonable. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a social worker who highlighted that the term 'person of concern' had been used to describe Mrs C within the document and that this was unreasonable. The council acknowledged this was unreasonable as it was not a term they would normally use. While there was issues with precise wording, we found that the information included in the document and the recommendation made was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C own a hotel in a conservation area. They applied to the council for a grant to replace the windows on the front of the hotel, and were awarded the full grant. They required planning permission to replace the windows, but had problems getting through the registration process. Mr and Mrs C felt that the information they were submitting was adequate, and felt frustrated with what they considered to be the council's lack of clarity regarding the information required. In the meantime, the hotel building was deteriorating, which had an impact on their business and the health and safety of their family who were living there. The council's position was that Mr and Mrs C had continually submitted inadequate planning applications which were invalid. Mr and Mrs C complained to us that the council's handling of their planning application was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not find any reasonable basis to question or challenge the council's reasoning and conclusions. We were satisfied that the council replied promptly, constructively and appropriately at all times. We considered that the council had made it clear what supporting documentation was required, and what essential items were missing, for the planning applications to be deemed valid for processing and determination. We found that the council were not in breach of any procedures or legislation, and did not cause any delays in the handling of the applications. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the housing association had not responded reasonably to their complaints of anti-social behaviour. We found that the association made multiple actions to respond to the issue, ultimately evicting the offending tenant and re-housing Mr and Mrs C. We considered that the association took reasonable steps to respond to the anti-social behaviour. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association did not investigate his complaints of damp in line with their obligations. He also complained that the association delayed taking action to address the issues of damp which he reported. The association responded by advising that they were seeking to install passive vents in the property, drill into the internal walls to measure moisture levels, and install data loggers to monitor any difference or improvement when the vents were installed. Delays occurred before this was done, with the association advising they could not obtain access to the property. Mr C disputed this.

We gathered information from Mr C and the association. We found that Mr C had raised this issue and that the initial inspection from the association was within the timescales set out in their repairs and maintenance policy. The association then cited problems accessing Mr C's property to carry out installation work and more intrusive inspections. We had no way of determining whether Mr C was or was not allowing access to his property. However, given the continuing engagement between both parties, and the non-urgent nature of the damp problem, we were of the view it was reasonable that the association continued to correspond with Mr C rather than forcing entry to the property as their repairs policy allows. Based on the initial, prompt response to the repair request, and given that we could not resolve the dispute between both parties over access to the property, we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.