Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

A solicitors firm complained on behalf of their client (Ms A) about the management of asbestos at a property she had rented from the council, and the time taken to provide her with a decant from the property.

Ms A's former property was constructed with asbestos containing materials. The council had surveyed these materials and considered that they were of low risk. Ms A was made aware of this when she moved in to the property. Approximately one year later, Ms A said the council's contractor undertook works at the property, and she was concerned that they damaged the flooring. Ms A said she reported this to the council. Approximately three years later, Ms A contacted the council to raise concerns about the flooring at the property and the council arranged an inspection. The council did not consider that the asbestos containing materials presented any risk. However, a decision was subsequently made to decant Ms A to another property. The council said that they offered one property, however, Ms A did not wish to move there. A number of months passed before Ms A was decanted to another property.

Regarding the management of asbestos at the property, we found that the council had conducted a survey that established this was low risk and in good condition. We found that the council followed their asbestos management plan. We found no evidence that the council's contractor carried out works inappropriately, and the council had no records of being contacted at that time. When Ms A raised concerns about the property approximately three years later, we found that the council organised an inspection, and relied on the professional expertise of their officer in concluding that there was no risk from the asbestos. We found this to be reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the time taken to provide a decant, we noted the council's records indicated that one was initially offered, but Ms A did not wish to move. The council explained that there were limited properties available that were suitable. The property that Ms A was eventually moved to required works before it was ready. In these circumstances, we considered that there was no unreasonable delay by the council and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a council tenant, complained that the council failed to take the appropriate action in response to her reports of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour.

We found that the council had investigated Ms C's complaints in line with their procedures. Whilst we noted that Ms C does not wish to continue living at her property, the council have not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour, therefore they cannot be required to take any enforcement action. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable.

We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged.

We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself, which he was required to do under the terms of his tenancy agreement. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Due to raised levels of carbon dioxide in her home, Mrs C was decanted to a new permanent home by the housing association. She complained to us that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy and that they failed to communicate with her in an appropriate manner throughout the process. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy because she did not feel that she was given enough money to buy or replace what she already had in her previous home. She said that she was told by the association that her new property would be finished to the same standard as her previous home, but that this had not been the case. Mrs C said she also received conflicting information from the association in relation to what they would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. She described staff attitude and communication as being poor throughout.

The association told us that, at an early stage of the carbon dioxide incident arising, they identified that they did not have a policy on decant and home loss allowances which covered an incident the scale of that experienced by Mrs C. They took steps to put one in place and confirmed that they took guidance for the amounts to offer for home loss and furnishings from Shelter (a charity which offers advice and advocacy regarding poor housing) and other housing associations. The association also explained that a number of alterations were carried out in Mrs C's new home, all to her specification. In addition, Mrs C received the appropriate home loss payment and she also received additional payments for replacing her floor coverings and curtains. The amounts Mrs C received were in line with the allowances set out in the association's decant policy. As such, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about the association's communication with her, we did not identify any evidence to suggest she was given conflicting information in relation to what the association would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. The information available confirmed that payments were made to Mrs C in line with the allowances set by the policy. We also saw evidence that staff had taken reasonable steps to keep in contact with Mrs C throughout the process. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about the association's communication with her throughout the process.

Summary

Ms C complained about the housing association's response to her reports of damp in her property.

The association investigated and they found no evidence of damp. They said that the problems were caused by condensation and they gave advice about heating and ventilation. We were satisfied that the association had taken reasonable action to investigate the issues and that they had provided the appropriate advice. As such, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment the ambulance service provided to his late mother (Mrs A).

Mrs A suffered a number of background conditions and she became unwell. The ambulance service received a phone call and paramedics attended. The paramedics assessed Mrs A as likely being medically unwell, with possible sepsis (a blood infection). There were difficulties moving Mrs A, and a second ambulance attended to assist paramedics. Mrs A was taken to hospital where her condition deteriorated and she died.

Mr C raised concerns about the actions of staff, including the time they took to move Mrs A, and the way they moved her. The ambulance service considered that the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was appropriate. They considered that staff performed a thorough assessment, and acted reasonably in the circumstances.

We took independent advice from a paramedic. We found evidence that all relevant observations and examinations were undertaken. Regarding the time taken to move Mrs A, we found that it was appropriate for paramedics to request a second ambulance to assist them in moving her and we found that the delay was not excessive in the circumstances. We found no evidence that Mrs A was incorrectly moved. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the medical care and treatment and also the nursing care provided to her when she attended the emergency department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. Ms C was brought to the hospital by ambulance as she was short of breath and had asthma. She complained that the clinical care and treatment she received was not reasonable and that she was discharged when she was still unwell.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine and from a nursing adviser. We found that Ms C was carefully examined and that no abnormal findings were made. As such, we found that the medical care and treatment provided to Ms C had been reasonable, and that it was reasonable to discharge Ms C. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We also found that the nursing care and treatment provided to Ms C at this attendance was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C sustained a burn to his lower left leg. He received treatment for his injury at the burns unit at St John's Hospital over a number of months. Mr C said that he did not have any feeling in his lower leg, had no movement in his left foot and that his lower leg was cold all the time. He said he was in constant pain and that the painkillers the board gave him did not work anymore. Mr C complained that when he asked the board to amputate his lower left leg, the board refused to do this. Mr C complained to us that the board's decision not to amputate his lower left leg was inappropriate.

We took independent advice from a consultant vascular surgeon. The adviser said that the treatment and advice given to Mr C was appropriate, that it adhered to Scottish and UK guidelines and that there was no indication for amputation of Mr C's left leg. The adviser explained that a patient could not, in law, dictate an operation to a surgeon, and if a reasonable body of medical opinion agreed that an operation was not in the best interests of the patient, such an operation should not be performed on the patient's instructions alone. We considered that the board's decision not to amputate Mr C's lower left leg was reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C had a fall in her home and sustained a fracture of her upper arm. She complained about the way a body bandage had been fitted at Monklands Hospital the following day and about the aftercare advice she was given. A nurse had fitted the bandage over her clothing, with advice that the bandage should be removed each night. Mrs C said that when she returned to the fracture clinic three days later, a nurse told her the bandage had been incorrectly fitted, and re-fitted it underneath her clothing.

Mrs C's fracture had not healed properly, leaving her in pain and requiring surgery. She believed that the way the injury was bandaged when she initially attended Monklands Hospital, and the aftercare advice about removing it at night, had caused her ongoing problems.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. The adviser explained that the purpose of the body bandage for fractures of this type is to provide some support and comfort to the patient, not to provide fracture stability. They advised that the way it was fitted was not material to the outcome in terms of Mrs C's recovery. They noted, however, that removing it would have caused her more pain. The only failing the adviser noted was the lack of consistency of advice regarding the way the bandage was fitted, but they noted that the board appeared to have addressed this by coming up with a standard protocol for these fractures.

In relation to the advice to remove the bandage at night, the adviser reiterated that the purpose of the bandage was not to provide fracture stability, and accordingly its removal would not have affected recovery. Because the focus of our investigation was on whether Mrs C's recovery was affected by the fitting of the body bandage and the aftercare advice, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr A) regarding treatment he received at Wishaw General Hospital after collapsing whilst he was out running. Mr A has a history of heart problems so, on admission to hospital, the symptoms he was experiencing, including ongoing headaches and worsening balance, were initially attributed to a suspected heart issue. However, as these symptoms continued to worsen in the following couple of days, a scan was arranged and a bleed to his brain was identified. Mrs C complained that, as a result of the delay in identifying the bleed, the board had failed to provide appropriate treatment for Mr A's head injury.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. The advice we received was that the treatment provided to Mr A was reasonable. The adviser considered that, based on Mr A's presenting symptoms, medical history and the information provided by the ambulance service, it was reasonable for the board to conclude that this was a cardiac event and that they had then offered appropriate treatment for this diagnosis. For this reason, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.