Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained to the board that his prescription of pregabalin (a medication used to treat anxiety and nerve pain) was not reinstated. This medication is commonly misused in the prison environment and his prescription was stopped after he was found giving his medication to another prisoner.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the decision not to reinstate Mr C's medication was reasonable. Due to his history of drug misuse, the adviser considered that a prescription for pregabalin would potentially increase the risk of overdose, particularly as he was already on other medications. We found that the board had also offered Mr C reasonable alternative medication to treat his anxiety and nerve pain. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment provided to her mother (Mrs A) at her GP practice. Miss C was concerned that the practice were not addressing Mrs A's health problems or taking into account her fear of medical situations. Miss C had power of attorney for Mrs A and complained that the practice provided Mrs A with unreasonable treatment and that they were not keeping her informed of Mrs A's health care.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice had completed a full assessment of Mrs A and a full advanced care plan was done. Mrs A was seen on a house call, as requested, and appropriate treatment was provided. There had also been communication between the practice and other professionals regarding Mrs A's healthcare. We considered that the practice provided Mrs A with appropriate care and treatment, and therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

In relation to Miss C's complaint about the practice failing to keep her informed, we found that at the time of Miss C's complaint, the practice held a letter confirming that Mrs A did have capacity. A subsequent assessment confirmed she lacked capacity, but the practice had not been aware of that at the time of the complaint, nor had they been aware of the power of attorney. We found that the practice acted appropriately in maintaining Mrs A's confidentiality until such time as it was brought to their attention that she no longer had capacity and Miss C had power of attorney. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the practice had not provided her with reasonable care and treatment when she raised concerns about her skin condition. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that the GPs at the practice had taken Mrs C's concerns seriously and that they had made reasonable and appropriate referrals to several specialists. We found that they had sent samples to a microbiology laboratory to be tested and that they had communicated thoroughly with the specialists regarding Mrs C's symptoms. We also found that the practice staff had communicated appropriately with Mrs C during consultations and when advising her of her diagnosis, and that the prescribed medications were appropriate. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C was a student on a university course that involved professional placement. Miss C felt that she was not supported on the course, both generally and for her additional learning needs. She was unhappy as she felt that the university did not help her find placements, and that they would not count a placement she had already completed towards her course. Finally, Miss C was not happy with how the university handled her complaint.

We looked at all the evidence provided to us by both Miss C and the university. In relation to general support for Miss C, we found that certain processes could have been handled better, and we gave the university feedback on this. However, we noted that these issues were remedied either at the time or as a result of Miss C's complaint to the university. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

We had some concerns about how the university dealt with specific aspects of Miss C's support for additional learning needs, and we made the university aware of our concerns. However, we did not find evidence that the university failed to provide the support that was agreed. We did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to course placements, we found that the university acted reasonably. The course handbook was clear that students were responsible for finding their own placements and the placement that Miss C had already completed did not meet the requirements to be counted. Therefore, we did not uphold either aspect of this complaint.

Finally, we found that the university's handling of Miss C's complaint was reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A, a postgraduate student, became the subject of two misconduct investigations by the university. The first was about several allegations of misconduct related to Mr A's behaviour (case A). The second related to an allegation of academic misconduct in a paper published by Mr A at a conference (case B). Following investigation, both cases were upheld by the respective conduct investigators and both were referred to a student disciplinary committee (SDC). Following a hearing, the SDC upheld case B and most of the allegations under case A. The SDC decided to exclude Mr A permanently from the university, with no eligibility for re-admittance on any course or degree programme.

Mrs C complained that the university's investigation of both cases was unreasonable, as important aspects of the process were unfair, perverse, irrational or arbitrary. Mrs C also complained that the conduct of the SDC and the disciplinary penalty imposed were unfair. Amongst other things, she raised concerns that:

Mr A was not offered an interview during the investigation into case B;

the SDC hearing went ahead despite Mr A submitting a medical certificate stating he was unfit to work;

several witnesses who had been asked to attend the SDC (to support case A) decided at a late stage not to attend; and

the SDC did not allow Mr A to have a translator or take into account that he speaks English as a second language.

We found that Mr A received adequate notice of the allegations, and had a reasonable opportunity to respond. The evidence provided by the university showed that the investigators had taken into account relevant evidence and given detailed reasons for their decision, which were shared with Mr A before the hearing. We noted that the university's policy did not specifically set out how they would deal with requests for postponing an SDC hearing (for example on medical grounds), or how they would take into account students' individual needs in considering requests for additional support (such as the use of a translator). However, in this case we considered the evidence indicated that Mr A received a fair hearing, particularly as there was a dual language speaker available at the hearing to assist with translation issues. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the university failed to follow their assessment policy in relation to the re-assessment of his dissertation by an independent marker. He also complained about the handling of his academic appeal.

We found that the university's assessment policy and related guidance did not, for Mr C's circumstances, specify how an assessment was to be re-marked or define what was meant by independent. The university explained that, in Mr C's case, an independent marker was someone who was not previously involved in marking Mr C's dissertation. We concluded that the university's explanation was reasonable, and that it was not proportionate to have a policy for every possible exceptional circumstance. We also found that the university's handling of Mr C's academic appeal was reasonable in the circumstances, as we found that they had acted in line with their assessment policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been unreasonably denied unescorted day release from prison. We found that Mr C's community access plan which was in place at the time of his request did not allow for unescorted community access. Therefore, we concluded that the decision to reject his request was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about the council's response to her reports of anti-social behaviour by her upstairs neighbour. The complaints largely concerned the noise caused by her neighbour's children and rubbish being left in communal areas. She did not consider the council's response or the actions they carried out to be adequate. The council carried out a number of actions to try to manage Miss C's neigbour’s behaviour and mitigate any noise transference between properties. However, Miss C did not consider these actions to go far enough and ended up moving home.

After reviewing the council's records and their anti-social behaviour policy, we concluded that the actions taken were reasonable and appropriate. We acknowledged the fact that some of the actions taken were not successful but emphasised that this, in itself, is not an indication of maladministration or service failure. We also considered that the council kept Miss C involved, responded appropriately to her concerns and provided explanations for why they were not considering other approaches. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning process. Mr C said that the owner of the site in question is now using the site for a purpose that was not part of their original planning application. Mr C said that a change of use planning application should have been made, and that the permission granted does not cover the activities currently being carried out at the site. In addition to this, Mr C felt that a transport assessment should have been carried out, due to the size of the site.

We reviewed the relevant information and took independent advice from a planning adviser. We concluded that there was no requirement that the council explicitly state that a change of use had been applied for. We also concluded that the council had considered the original application as a change of use application, and that the subsequent approval permits the activities currently being carried out at the site. In respect of the transport assessment, we were satisfied that the guidance states that the size criteria is indicative, and not an automatic trigger for an assessment to be carried out. Although we found that the council's report of handling could have been more detailed on this matter, we considered the council's subsequent explanations for why they did not carry out a transport assessment to be acceptable. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C's father (Mr A) had been receiving a care package from the council's Extended Community Care Team (ECCT) when an assessment resulted in his recognised care needs changing. Mr C attempted to source a new suitable care package but struggled to do this and asked the council to assist him. Mr C rejected the care package the council offered. A few days later, he was offered the same care package and refused it again. Mr C was then also told that the ECCT package would have to be reduced and, the following day, that it would be removed altogether.

Mr C complained to the council that they had used the reduction and withdrawal of the ECCT package to force him to accept the care package he had previously rejected. The council stated that the EECT package was only to be used for a limited period of time and indicated that Mr C had been advised of this reduction and withdrawal prior to refusing the other care package. However, the council recognised that this information had not been made clear to Mr C at the outset and took action to prevent this happening again in the future. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us.

We found no evidence that the council had attempted to force Mr C to accept the care package. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.