Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Ms C attended a dental practice for emergency treatment as she was experiencing tooth pain. Ms C complained that the dentist treated the wrong tooth and failed to identify an infection in her wisdom tooth. The practice confirmed that the dentist performed the first stage of a root canal treatment in the tooth that they identified as causing Ms C's pain. They also confirmed that there was no infection present in Ms C's wisdom tooth on the day of her appointment. Ms C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We took independent advice from a dentist and found that Ms C's dentist carried out a thorough assessment of her symptoms. We noted that the dentist treated the tooth that was identified as causing the pain following a series of tests, including an x-ray. We also found no evidence of an infection in the wisdom tooth and, therefore, it was likely that the infection developed after the appointment. We considered that the treatment Ms C received was reasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the plans made for her labour at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh were unreasonable. Specifically, that she was refused a caesarean section and induction of labour, and that she was advised not to call an ambulance when going into labour. Miss C also complained that staff included inaccurate information, about a consultation, in correspondence to her GP.

We took independent medical advice from a consultant obstetrician and found that there was no evidence to show that Miss C was refused a caesarean section or induction of labour. We considered that it was reasonable of board staff to recommend against a caesarean section in this case, given the complications associated with the operation. We also considered that advice given not to call for an ambulance outside an emergency situation was appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

We were also satisfied that a member of staff had not unreasonably included inaccurate information to Miss C's GP and, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. However, we provided feedback to the board that there appeared to have been some miscommunication regarding the matter.

Summary

Mrs C, an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr B) who had concerns about the way the medical practice had managed his mother (Mrs A)'s oxazepam medication (for anxiety and to be taken for short periods only). He said that Mrs A had been taking the medication for a number of years and that the practice had recently reduced the medication and, as a result, Mrs A suffered a stroke. She was taken to hospital and died of a further stroke a number of days later. Mr B felt that the stress of the medication reduction caused Mrs A to suffer a stroke.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice medicine and found that the practice had managed Mrs A's medication regime in an appropriate manner. Care has to be taken with oxazepam medication as it can cause both psychological and physical addiction. Practices have a responsibility to keep medication under review to ensure that it is still required and if it is not, they must reduce it or stop the medication completely. We found that there was evidence from the records that Mrs A was initially not requesting the medication on a regular basis but recently had made increased requests. This made it necessary to review and reduce the medication to an appropriate level. There was also no evidence that the reduction in medication led to Mrs A suffering a stroke. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the practice had failed to provide appropriate treatment to his late wife (Mrs A). Mrs A had been attending a hospital out-patient department for a separate matter and had been advised to make an emergency GP appointment as she was showing symptoms of a cough and breathlessness. Mrs A developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT, blood clot in a large vein) four days after the consultation and later died. Mr C believed that the practice should have referred his wife to hospital at the time of the appointment.

The practice responded that Mrs A was given an emergency appointment following her attendance at the out-patient clinic. However, the reason for the appointment was for anxiety problems and Mrs A only reported symptoms of low mood and that her heart was racing. Mrs A did not report symptoms of having a cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, or pain or swelling in her leg. The practice prescribed anti-depressant medication and diagnosed anxiety problems.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general practice medicine and concluded that, from the entries in Mrs A's medical records, the practice had provided a reasonable level of care. There was no indication that Mrs A had reported symptoms suggestive of DVT and the medication prescribed by the practice was appropriate for symptoms of anxiety and low mood. There was also no indication that a hospital referral was required at that time. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her late father (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received from the practice prior to his diagnosis of cancer. Mr A presented at the practice with a swollen jaw and neck and was advised to visit his dentist immediately. Mr A later attended the out-of-hours GP service. The practice received the out-of-hours report that stated Mr A had an upcoming appointment at hospital and that he had been referred to an ear, nose and throat specialist. Ms C later contacted the practice as Mr A had become more unwell and an admission to hospital was agreed. Mr A was diagnosed with cancer and died not long after his diagnosis. Ms C complained that more could have been done by the practice to speed up the diagnosis.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. They reviewed the records and were satisfied that the practice had provided reasonable care at each point of contact. Mr A had been seen by his dentist and out-of-hours services and was soon under the care of a consultant. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.