Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that, following his discharge from hospital, his medical practice unreasonably failed to contact him for more than 48 hours, and unreasonably failed to carry out a home visit despite his request for one. The practice responded to his complaint by apologising for any lack of care which Mr C felt he had received, but explained that the discharging unit at the hospital usually take responsibility for co-ordinating with community care and district nursing teams. They also noted that where there was a medical need for immediate post-discharge medical input, hospital clinicians would usually communicate this directly to the practice. We noted that Mr C requested a home visit when on the way home from hospital by visiting the practice and dropping off a letter.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. The adviser reviewed Mr C's medical records and said there was no indication that a house visit was necessary, as it appeared that Mr C was able to attend the practice for an appointment. The adviser also noted that the decision whether or not to offer a home visit lies with the clinician, and should be based on clinical need. The adviser confirmed that it is not routine practice for GPs to contact patients who have been discharged from hospital once they have returned home, although they may do so following a review of the patient's discharge medication and history. The adviser noted that in this case the practice had reviewed Mr C's medication and history and contacted him by phone within 48 hours of his request and considered this reasonable.

The adviser also commented that if there was a clinical need for contact from the GP, this would have been detailed on the discharge letter from the hospital. There was no request for contact in Mr C's discharge letter. It was unfortunate that reception staff at the practice did not make clear to Mr C that home visits would only be carried out on the basis of clinical need, and by phone request on the day. However, we were satisfied that the evidence suggested that a home visit was not required, and that the time taken by the practice to contact Mr C following discharge was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the care provided by the practice following a phone consultation. The day following her discharge from hospital for heart bypass surgery, Mrs A called the practice for advice. A GP called her back a short time later and discussed medication with her. At this time, Mrs A reported a clicking sensation in her chest. The GP reassured her about this sensation and advised her to contact the practice again if she became more unwell. Mrs A's condition deteriorated later that day and she was admitted to hospital, where she was treated for an infection.

Ms C raised concern that the GP did not identify that Mrs A had an infection and felt that a home visit should have been carried out. We took independent advice from a GP adviser. Whilst they noted that the GP's clinical record of the consultation was brief, on balance, the adviser considered that the assessment and care provided was reasonable. We accepted this advice and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately handle his request to have his legal agent's phone number added to his prison phone account. He also complained that the SPS failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about this.

Mr C said that he submitted the appropriate form with details of his request but that the SPS did not have any record of having received it. The SPS said that they only became aware of Mr C's request after an officer, who received a complaint from Mr C, called the business support team to notify them. Mr C said the officer who responded to his complaint indicated that he could call his lawyer, and Mr C said he felt this response indicated that any calls made would be confidential. However, the business support team added Mr C's legal agent's phone number to his account, but because the details could not be verified in the normal way, the number was added as allowed but not private. This meant that any calls made by Mr C to his legal agent could be recorded. The SPS said that they told Mr C that the number would only be added as private when sufficient evidence was provided by him to confirm that the phone number was in fact for his legal agent.

We found that the SPS had handled Mr C's request appropriately and in line with the normal process. We were also satisfied that the SPS had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained about the way the council dealt with her complaint to them. She was also was unhappy that the council had issued warnings following an investigation into allegations of anti-social behaviour.

We were satisfied that the council demonstrated that a fair and balanced investigation into complaints of anti-social behaviour had taken place and that their discretionary decision to issue warnings was in line with their procedures.

We were also satisfied that the council could demonstrate that a full investigation of Miss C's subsequent complaint had taken place and that their letter explaining their decision was reasonable. As a result of our findings, we did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about a planning application for a residential development of houses close to his own. He was concerned about the way the council considered, and then approved, the application. Mr C said that insufficient information was made available to allow the public to make informed objections and that his privacy had been overlooked to the benefit of the developer. Mr C also said that the council did not give proper consideration to their existing policies. During the build, the developer constructed a site office without the benefit of planning permission, and they advertised properties for sale. Mr C brought this to the council's attention but said that they failed to take appropriate action and did not require the developer to stop works. Mr C said that council officers allowed the developer to make a retrospective planning application for the site office, which Mr C felt was to his disadvantage. Mr C also complained about the way the council dealt with his subsequent complaints.

The council took the view that they had provided sufficient information about the planning application for the residential development and that, in deciding it, had taken into account Mr C's objections. The council said that they had noted and looked into Mr C's concerns about the site office. They had contacted the developer about a number of issues and made a site visit. Following this, it was decided that a retrospective planning application was to be submitted and Mr C would be kept updated. It was also agreed that council officers would continue to monitor the site office. Mr C remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We took independent planning advice and we found that, in accordance with relevant guidance, the council had provided sufficient information for the application for the residential development to be considered reasonably and appropriately. We found that, after Mr C had reported concerns about the unauthorised building of the site office and the use of this site to advertise properties for sale, the council had looked into the matter to ensure that an appropriate planning application was submitted. They did not take enforcement action, but the decision whether or not to do so was a matter for their professional judgement. We considered the council's handling of Mr C's complaints to have been reasonable overall. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Planning permission was sought for development of an area bordering Mr C's property. Mr C felt that the council's report of handling for this application should have made reference to a section 75 agreement (a contract that is entered into between a landowner and a planning authority) that had been reached in relation to another application that had previously been submitted for a separate, nearby area. Mr C felt that the section 75 agreement relating to the other application should have been mentioned in the report of handling for the new application for planning permission as the two applications were similar. Mr C also felt that the council's report of handling did not accurately detail the requirements of the council's policy regarding the collection of domestic waste. Mr C also raised concerns that the council's responses to his enquiries and complaints had not been reasonable. Mr C felt that the council's responses were not provided within a reasonable timescale, relied upon events that had not occurred at the time of the consideration of the application and had contained an error that was retracted when he had queried it.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser and found that it was reasonable that there was no reference to the section 75 agreement in the report of handling as this agreement was not transferable to the new application for planning permission. We found that the council was not obligated to provide the exhaustive detail of the waste policy that Mr C felt should have been included in their report. We also found that the council's responses had been given within the published timescales, had not relied upon future events and had been reasonable in accepting that an error, which did not affect the council's conclusions, had been made. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in repairing the door entry system at his block of flats following a fire at his property. Mr C is on the council's housing list and he believes that the council are not following their housing allocation policy correctly. He complained that they failed to provide him with a clear explanation of their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained the council did not take appropriate action in line with their policies to address his concerns about anti-social behaviour at his property.

Our investigation found that the council did progress the repairs to the door entry system where possible. However the delay was due to other residents not allowing the council access to their properties. It is our view the council did not unreasonably delay in repairing the door entry system. We found the complaints about anti-social behaviour related to Mr C's previous tenancy. The council's policy also states that if the complaints about anti-social behaviour relate to a disturbance, then the correct procedure is for the complainant to report this to the police. We also found the council's explanation of their housing allocation policy was correct and that they had applied it correctly. We found no fault or failing in the council's actions therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C bought a property and, upon moving in, discovered that many aspects of work and decoration in the house were either not completed or were of a poor standard. The council had issued a certificate of completion to the previous owner prior to the sale. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy as they spent a significant amount of money remedying the issues, and they said that they would not have bought the property had they known about these issues. They complained to us that the council failed to carry out appropriate inspections of the property prior to issuing a certificate of completion.

The council said that they had carried out an inspection and identified a number of actions which had to be taken before a certificate of completion could be provided for the previous owner. The owner advised the council when these actions had been taken, and the council carried out a further inspection. Following the second inspection, the council were satisfied that the works had been completed and a certificate of completion was issued.

We looked into this complaint and noted that it was not possible for us to establish the quality of the inspections or the work that had been carried out, as we had not been present at that time. After looking at the council's correspondence on this matter, we were satisfied that during their first inspection the council had listed issues which needed to be addressed, and that they had then followed up on this with a second inspection. They had gathered suitable evidence of the work having been completed from the tradesmen involved, and their actions appeared to us to have been reasonable, in line with their responsibilities under the Buildings (Scotland) Act 2003. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Scottish Ambulance Service (the ambulance service) had delayed in responding to an alarm call made by her late mother (Mrs A). Mrs A lived in an assisted living complex and had made an alarm call to an alarm receiving centre (this was a private company that was not part of the ambulance service). She did not respond when the alarm receiving centre answered the call and they contacted the ambulance service. An emergency ambulance was dispatched to Mrs A's home, but it was then decided that this should be stood down and that another non-emergency ambulance would attend. On arrival at Mrs A's home paramedics found that she had died.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser, who is involved in the training of paramedics and who regularly works alongside them in the provision of pre-hospital care. We found that it had been reasonable for the ambulance service to cancel the emergency ambulance and to respond to the call using a non-emergency ambulance. This was in line with the agreed protocol and, as there was no information at that time to confirm that there was an urgent threat to life, we found that the time taken by the ambulance service to respond had been reasonable. The advice we received was that the risk of ambulances responding to calls using emergency blue light driving conditions for calls which turned out not to be life-threatening emergencies had to be taken into account. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment provided to her late husband (Mr A) by an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP). The ANP had attended Mr A at his nursing home as staff had reported that he was having breathing problems. Mrs C said that the ANP did not make arrangements for Mr A to be assessed by a doctor or arrange for him to be taken to hospital. Mr A continued to have breathing issues and was admitted to hospital the following day, where he died two days later.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser. We concluded that the ANP had carried out an appropriate clinical assessment of Mr A's condition by listening to his chest and establishing that there was no evidence of a chest infection or that Mr A was in respiratory distress. We found that the ANP had also appropriately prescribed a treatment to assist Mr A's breathing, and that there was no indication at that time that Mr A had to be reviewed by a doctor or should have been referred to hospital for a specialist opinion. We did not uphold the complaint.