Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her husband (Mr A) received during an admission to St Andrew's Community Hospital for a period of rehabilitation. She complained that Mr A's suspected urinary tract infection and delirium were not treated appropriately and with sufficient urgency, thus prolonging his admission unnecessarily. She also raised concerns that he was inappropriately sedated over the weekend prior to discharge.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser who considered that Mr A received appropriate treatment for his infection symptoms and delirium. They noted in particular that his blood results were negative for infection when Mrs C first requested more aggressive antibiotic treatment. The adviser also considered it clinically reasonable to prescribe a sleeping tablet as a trial to treat restlessness at night, although they said that it would have been good practice for staff to have discussed this with Mrs C in advance. The board had already acknowledged that it would have been helpful for this to have been discussed with Mrs C. We accepted the advice received and concluded that the medical care provided to Mr A was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff at the dental practice had failed to deal appropriately with his concerns that his gums continued to bleed after having four teeth extracted. He was on warfarin medication (a medication to prevent blood clots) which meant that he was at high risk of bleeding. He reported this to the dentist, who said that it would be alright and he could leave the practice. When Mr C got home, the bleeding continued and he contacted the practice again and was asked to attend. He saw a second dentist who also said that he was not to worry and that the bleeding would stop. However, the bleeding continued that evening and Mr C had to attend hospital, where the bleeding eventually stopped and he was sent home.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general dentistry and concluded that the second dentist was aware that Mr C was on warfarin medication and that they had repeated the advice given earlier by the first dentist about what Mr C should do in the event of bleeding from his gums. We considered this to be reasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that dental staff at the practice had failed to deal appropriately with his concerns that his gums continued to bleed after having four teeth extracted. He was on warfarin medication (a medication to prevent blood clots) which meant that he was at high risk of bleeding. He reported this to a dentist, who said that it would be alright and he could leave the practice. When Mr C got home, the bleeding continued and he contacted the practice again and was asked to attend. He saw a different dentist, who also said that he was not to worry and the bleeding would stop. However, the bleeding continued that evening and Mr C had to attend hospital where the bleeding eventually stopped and he was sent home.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general dentistry and concluded that the first dentist was aware that Mr C was on warfarin medication, that they had checked his clotting status prior to the extractions and that they had stitched and packed the tooth sockets following the extractions. The first dentist had also provided Mr C with a detailed post-operative instruction sheet, which provided advice on action which should be taken regarding any bleeding. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C is a mature student who suffers from anxiety. Mr C complained that the college unreasonably failed to provide reasonable adjustments and take seriously his concerns about age and anxiety issues. He also complained the college failed to address his concerns about bullying. Mr C said that his anxiety reached unmanageable levels due to the lack of empathy shown by the college staff. Mr C believes that his college tutor did not properly make the other lecturers aware of his anxiety issues.

We found that, where possible, the college did offer reasonable adjustments to Mr C. Mr C was offered counselling, and the option of moving class was discussed. It was also confirmed that students are offered the opportunity to disclose information about their disability at the point of registering on the course, and we did not see any evidence to suggest that Mr C was unaware of this. We found no evidence that the college tutor did not inform the other lecturers of Mr C's anxiety and we did not find any evidence of bullying. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C was a student on a placement at an organisation outside the university. He felt that he was bullied by staff at the organisation where he was on placement and complained to the external organisation. They investigated, and found that Mr C had been mistreated while on placement. Mr C was unhappy with the university's role in what happened and complained to them. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us. He complained to us that the university had failed to follow their Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure during his placement, that they had unreasonably provided incorrect information to the external organisation about his reports of mistreatment during placement, and that the university had handed his complaint in an unreasonable way.

We found that the university's Dignity at Work & Study Policy and Procedure outlined what a student or university staff member should do if they thought they were being subjected to bullying by students, members of university staff, or contractors and suppliers. It did not include a specific provision for students on placement who thought they were being subjected to bullying by a member of staff employed by the placement provider. Given this, we found that the policy did not apply in Mr C's circumstances and we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

We found that information about Mr C's reports of mistreatment was provided by the university to the external organisation in a phone call. Given this, we could not prove exactly what was discussed and whether the information was incorrect. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

We found that the university's investigation report on Mr C's complaint was a reasonable reflection of the relevant evidence from him, university staff, and the external organisation. The report responded to each of the main points of Mr C's complaint and reached reasonable conclusions on them. We therefore considered that the university had handled Mr C's complaint in a reasonable way and we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, in their investigation report about the complaint, the university had made a number of recommendations. Given the importance of the university learning from complaints to improve their service, we requested that they send us evidence that these recommendations had been implemented.

Summary

Mr C complained that Registers of Scotland (RoS) had included part of his property on his neighbour's title deeds on the Land Register. This came to light when, a number of years later, Mr C tried to register his own title deeds on the Land Register. RoS rejected Mr C's application as it partially overlapped with the neighbouring property that was already on the Land Register. This meant that Mr C had to arrange for his lawyer to transfer part of the land registered in his neighbour's name to him, even although Mr C and his neighbour understood the land to have been Mr C's. This cost Mr C money and he did not think that this was fair.

RoS explained that, when Mr C's neighbour had historically registered his titles on the Land Register, the plan used included the piece of ground in question. At that time, no surrounding property had been registered on the Land Register and so nothing had alerted RoS to a possible issue. That only happened when Mr C tried to register his title several years later. As RoS had reflected the information that had been submitted to them historically, they said that they had not made an error and would not be able to reimburse the additional charges Mr C had incurred.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to an administrative failing by RoS. Our investigation confirmed that, in circumstances of this case, they would not have rejected Mr C's neighbour's historical application. It was also similarly clear that they would, however, reject Mr C's application and that it would be for him to instruct the conveyancing necessary to fix the situation. Whilst we recognised why Mr C felt that it was unfair that he had to bear the cost of the additional steps needed, the evidence indicated that this was not due to a fault on the part of RoS. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C had fallen into arrears with his council tax. The council referred Mr C's debt to a sheriff officer and debt collection service, however they later withdrew the account and advised Mr C that they were beginning sequestration proceedings (the action of taking legal possession of assets). Mr C said that he felt that the council's approach was unsympathetic and that they were not understanding of his circumstances.

Mr C complained to us that the council had not appropriately informed him of the outstanding council tax payment from a number of years previously. He also complained that the council had failed to advise him of his entitlement to council tax reduction and that they had unreasonably failed to honour his agreement with the debt collection agency.

We found that the council's records show that Mr C was in contact with them for a number of years regarding his outstanding debt, so it was evident that he was aware of it. We also found that the council had advised Mr C to apply for council tax reduction on a number of occasions over a period of years. We also found that the council sent a recorded delivery letter to inform Mr C that they were pursuing sequestration. After they received confirmation that the letter had been received, the council cancelled the account with the debt collection agency. We considered that the council had followed the correct procedure in this regard. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council that they did not adequately respond to the repairs at his property relating to dampness and a faulty boiler. He also complained that the council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and failed to take into account his mental health when determining that he was intentionally homeless.

In their response to Mr C the council summarised the works carried out to the property. They said that the issues reported with regards to the boiler were resolved and that there was no issues with respect to dampness which would have made the property uninhabitable or would have caused the health problems Mr C had reported. With respect to the homelessness application, they reiterated the process that they had followed. Mr C was not happy with the response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the council had adequately responded to reported faults at the property. Boiler works were carried out in accordance with their policy and, whilst there was a delay in providing a full reinstatement to flooring in the bathroom following an identified leak, this was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not cause the property to be uninhabitable.

With respect to the homelessness application, we were satisfied that the council properly assessed Mr C's circumstances, communicated with him effectively throughout the process, provided him with accommodation throughout and clarified points he raised at a review meeting. It was clear that the council obtained relevant information, particularly with respect to Mr C's health and mental health, and made their decision in accordance with appropriate policies and guidance. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about planning consent for an extension to a house on a neighbouring site. In particular, he complained that the council had failed to carry out a reasonable assessment of the impact on his privacy.

We took independent planning advice. We found that the council, as planning authority, had processed the planning application in accordance with the correct policy and procedure, and that a reasonable assessment of the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties was carried out. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mr C considered that the works carried out at his home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled his complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mr C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold his complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and that there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mr C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these.

We also found that Mr C's complaint had been handled in line with the council's complaints handling procedure. Consequently, we did not uphold this complaint.