Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably invoked their unacceptable actions policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that their contact with the council had been restricted in this way.

The council are entitled to apply their UAP in the appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision. Rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council's letters to Mr and Mrs C had highlighted the behaviour that was causing the council concern, enclosed copies of their UAP and told Mr and Mrs C that their contact may be restricted if that behaviour did not change. As Mr and Mrs C's behaviour continued unchanged, the council subsequently wrote to them confirming that their contact was being restricted. The council explained that they would review their decision in three months, although Mr and Mrs C could also ask them to review the decision.

The evidence indicated that Mr and Mrs C were given a chance to modify their behaviour before the council invoked their UAP. It also indicated that, once the decision to restrict their contact was made, the council's letters contained the relevant information detailed in the UAP. On that basis, we concluded that the council had made a decision they were entitled to have made and that there was no evidence of maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained to the housing association that, prior to her agreeing to take up a tenancy, they failed to fully disclose the extent of the neighbours' anti-social behaviour, specifically relating to their barking dogs. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate steps to address her complaints of anti-social behaviour by neighbours.

In their response to Miss C's complaint, the association explained that she was advised of the neighbouring dogs causing a nuisance, but that they had no other information or complaints regarding the extent of the dogs barking prior to her taking up the tenancy. They outlined that they had advised her that the neighbour was a private tenant and as such they had no power to take action.

Miss C was not satisfied with the association's response to her complaint. She considered that the association should have done more to manage the problems with respect to the barking dogs and associated disturbances with her neighbours. She brought her complaint to us.

We did not find any evidence that, prior to Miss C taking up her tenancy, the association had received complaints regarding barking dogs at neighbouring properties. Consequently, we did not consider that the association had unreasonably failed to provide her with important information prior to her taking up the tenancy.

In relation to the handling of Miss C's complaints, we found that Miss C was offered appropriate advice that the council were the appropriate body to take action in relation to disturbances relating to barking dogs. We considered that the association had provided Miss C with appropriate advice in the circumstances.

We found that the association had investigated Miss C's complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately, in line with their anti-social behaviour policy, and had advised Miss C of the outcome on each occasion. As a result, we considered the association had carried out appropriate investigations.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care that his wife (Mrs A) received as a patient at both the Western General Hospital and Astley Ainslie Hospital. Mr C was unhappy that Mrs A was occasionally attended to by male nurses. Mr C also felt that Mrs A was given unreasonably high doses of medication.

We took independent advice from a nurse. The adviser explained that male nurses routinely carry out the same care as female nurses, for both female and male patients. This includes personal care such as toileting and washing. The adviser reviewed Mrs A's medical records and found that it was reasonable in the circumstances for her to be attended to, on occasion, by male nurses. The adviser also found that Mrs A was not kept sedated and was given the recommended doses of medication. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in a scan taken of his chest area being formally reported at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Mr C had lung cancer and was undergoing treatment for this. At an appointment with a cancer specialist he reported symptoms of breathlessness and the specialist referred him for a scan and to a respiratory consultant. Mr C underwent the scan the same day as his respiratory appointment, at which point there was no formal report of his scan. The formal report was produced ten days later, and it was discovered that Mr C had a pulmonary embolism (blockage of a blood vessel in the lung). He was therefore immediately admitted to hospital for treatment. Mr C complained that the scan should have been checked and reported on the same day as it was taken, in order to ensure there were no significant problems.

We took independent advice from a consultant radiologist. We found that there are no specific standards for reporting scans and that there was not an unreasonable delay in Mr C's scan being reported. We also found that the area of pulmonary embolism shown on the scan was relatively small and would not have been recognised by a non-radiologist. We found it reasonable that the scan was not reviewed by a radiologist on the day it was taken and that the board had reasonable protocols in place to ensure significant pathology was related to clinicians in a timely manner. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board had failed to provide her with reasonable treatment at the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) service at Inverclyde Royal Hospital in relation to her balance problems. Mrs C considered that the problem was being caused by fluid in the tubes in her ears. She was referred to a number of clinicians in the ENT service, but they were unable to establish what was causing her balance problems.

We took independent advice from an ENT consultant. We found that staff in the ENT service had carried extensive tests and there was no evidence that Mrs C's balance problems were being caused by fluid in the tubes in her ears. Mrs C felt that some tests had not been carried out because of her age and because of cutbacks. We found that there was no evidence of this and we found that the investigations carried out by the board into the problem had been reasonable and appropriate. In addition, there had not been any unreasonable delays in carrying out the tests. In view of all of this, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.