Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council as he was not happy with their response to his repair request relating to damp in his property. Mr C had previously experienced damp in the property and the council had attended and made repairs. The problem returned approximately six weeks later and Mr C had reported it again to the council. They attended the property and it was found that the cavity wall insulation had deteriorated. The council arranged to have this replaced.

Mr C was of the view that the poor quality of the cavity wall insulation was the main cause of damp in the property, and he believed this should have been identified and remedied by the council sooner. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for repair, and that they had dealt unreasonably with his subsequent complaint.

We found that the council had responded to the repairs within reasonable timescales, and that the options they had explored to treat the damp before having the cavity wall insulation replaced were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

With regards to complaints handling, whilst we found that the council's response to Mr C's stage one complaint had been late and they had not apologised for this, we found that the complaints handling was reasonable overall. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, but we did offer feedback to the council to stress that, if a complaints response is going to be outwith the timescale, then complainants should be notified where possible, and apologies for this should be provided.

Summary

Mr C complained about rechargeable repairs he was billed for after he vacated his tenancy. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement he was responsible for any damage caused and any items left in the property. He was charged for removal of items, repairs to doors and cleaning and redecoration throughout.

We found that Mr C had been properly advised of his responsibilities. We further found that the condition of the property was beyond what could be considered fair wear and tear. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment he received from the board in relation to his mental health whilst he was in prison. We took independent advice on the complaint from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mr C had been reasonable. He had received mental health nursing reviews, a full psychiatric assessment and had also seen a number of other healthcare staff. The management of his medication had also been reasonable. Whilst there had been a delay in arranging for Mr C to see a psychiatrist, we found that this was not unreasonable. He saw other healthcare staff during this period and they discussed his care with the psychiatrist and put interim measures in place. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that staff in the prison health centre failed to provide appropriate treatment in relation to his cellulitis (an infection of the deeper layers of skin and the underlying tissue). We took independent advice on this aspect of his complaint from a GP adviser. There was no evidence in Mr C's medical records that he had cellulitis, although the records showed that he had been treated for scabies. We found that the care and medication provided by the board in relation to scabies had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the board had failed to respond appropriately to his complaints. We found that Mr C had made a large number of complaints. Whilst there had been some delays by the board in responding to these complaints, these delays had not been unreasonable. We considered that the board had issued a reasonable response to the issues Mr C had raised and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the medical practice on behalf of her five-year-old son. Ms C complained that the GP failed to diagnose her son's tonsillitis over the course of two appointments. Ms C told us that the GP should have diagnosed tonsillitis rather than referring her son to the paediatric team at a hospital in the board's area. The practice advised that, at the first appointment, the GP had been able to examine Ms C's son, despite him being upset. The GP did not observe any infection, and based on his symptoms, diagnosed Ms C's son with hand and mouth disease. At a second appointment, the GP examined Ms C's son. At this appointment the GP had not been able to take all of the measurements they had wanted to during the consultation. As a result, the GP felt that the diagnosis was unclear and referred Ms C's son to the paediatric team at the hospital. Ms C also complained that the GP refused to arrange an ambulance to transport her son to the hospital. The GP offered patient transport, however Ms C felt that this was not suitable as it would have taken too long.

We took independent GP advice. The adviser examined the records and confirmed that the GP examined Ms C's son in line with General Medical Council (GMC) guidance. The adviser confirmed that it was appropriate for the GP to refer Ms C's son to the hospital given that he was presenting with persistent symptoms. The adviser also confirmed that the GP's actions regarding transport to the hospital were appropriate as ambulances should only be used in an emergency. We found no evidence that the GP had failed to provide the appropriate clinical treatment. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that staff at the dental practice unreasonably informed him that he was exempt from NHS charges for dental treatment. Mr C said that, when he started a course of dental treatment at the practice, he told the staff that he was in receipt of carer's allowance and they completed a form and said that he would be exempt from NHS treatment costs. He was subsequently contacted by NHS Counter Fraud Services who said that he had fraudulently claimed exemption as he had completed the form stating that he was in receipt of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, which was not the case. Mr C was asked to pay the costs of the NHS treatment along with a penalty charge. He maintained that while he had signed the form, he had not ticked the box which stated that he was in receipt of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

We took independent advice from an adviser in general dentistry and concluded that there would have been a discussion with staff about whether Mr C was exempt from charges. There was reference in his dental records that Mr C thought he was exempt from charges as he was a full time carer. We were unable to establish who had ticked the box to indicate that Mr C was in receipt of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, but the form did contain Mr C's signature. The staff maintained that they would not have ticked the box as they do not know the patient's financial situation and that the onus was on the patient to ensure that they were signing a form which was accurate. It was noted that following Mr C's representations, NHS Counter Fraud Services had waived the penalty charge aspect and therefore he was only liable to pay the costs of the dental treatment. We did not uphold the complaint.