Not upheld, no recommendations

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upon events that had not occurred at the time of the consideration of the application and had contained an error that was retracted when he had queried it.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.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment his wife (Mrs A) received at Dunbar Hospital. Mr C and Mrs A had just moved to the area and had not yet registered with a local GP practice when Mrs A became unwell with flu-like symptoms. NHS 24 advised her to attend Dunbar Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a respiratory infection and prescribed antibiotics. Mrs A had two further attendances and phone contact with the hospital, before registering with a local GP. The GP diagnosed pneumonia, prescribed a new course of antibiotics and subsequently arranged an emergency admission to a different hospital for treatment.

Mr C complained that the doctor who initially assessed Mrs A at Dunbar Hospital failed to diagnose her pneumonia. He also complained that Mrs A was assessed by nursing staff on her subsequent attendances at the hospital and not a doctor, despite his understanding that the plan was for further medical review. In addition, he complained that the nurse Mrs A spoke to when she phoned Dunbar Hospital did not make appropriate arrangements for her to be seen by a doctor and simply advised her to register with a local GP.

We took independent advice from both a GP and a nurse. Both advisers considered that the respective assessments of Mrs A were reasonable and they considered it appropriate for her to have been advised to register with a local GP. They noted that the out-of-hours service at Dunbar Hospital is for emergency care when GP surgeries are closed. They also noted that routine follow-up and the arrangements of tests is usually carried out by the GP. The GP adviser considered that Mrs A's initial diagnosis and treatment were appropriate and noted that the treatment would have been the same if pneumonia had been suspected initially. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also raised concerns that the board's response to his complaint contained a number of inaccurate and misleading statements. In particular, he considered that it inappropriately contained continual reference to the GP registration issue and that the response did not justify the poor quality of care that he considered was provided by Dunbar Hospital. We reiterated that we found the advice to register with a GP to have been appropriate and we found no evidence to support Mr C's concerns that the detail of the board's response was inaccurate or misleading. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her mother (Mrs A) about the way her medical practice managed the medication for her thyroid condition. Mrs A had a condition called hypothyroidism (where the thyroid gland is underactive and does not produce enough thyroxine hormone) and had received treatment for this for a number of years. Mrs A had attended the practice for a blood test to measure her levels of thyroxine. When the test results showed that her thyroxine level was too high, a GP at the practice advised Mrs A to stop taking her thyroxine replacement medication and to attend the practice in six weeks to have the levels checked again.

Shortly before Mrs A was due to return to the practice, she had a seizure and was hospitalised. Doctors at the hospital concluded that the seizure was caused by profound hypothyroidism following the withdrawal of thyroxine medication. Ms C complained that the medication should have been reduced more gradually and that follow-up tests should have been arranged sooner than they were. She also complained that Mrs A was not informed of the side effects of withdrawing the medication.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser who said that there were a number of risks associated with high thyroxine levels. In view of this, they considered that the GP's decision to cease thyroxine medication and review Mrs A in six weeks was reasonable. They did not consider that Mrs A's rapid development of hypothyroidism followed by a seizure was predictable, and noted this was a rare complication of her condition. While there was no evidence that discussion of side effects had taken place, the adviser did not think it was unreasonable had the GP not discussed the rare complications of a seizure in the circumstances of this case. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Ms C made a number of complaints to us about the care and treatment she received from the board's community psychiatric nurse (CPN) service. Her complaints included concerns about the allocation of a CPN and discharge arrangements. She also complained about the board's handling of her complaint.

We took independent advice from a mental health nurse and from a consultant psychiatrist. Ms C complained that the board had arranged a meeting without her consent after she made a complaint about a support worker. We found that the board's records indicated that Ms C had agreed to the meeting and we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the board had unreasonably allocated her a CPN that she could not work with. We found that it had been reasonable for the board to appoint this member of staff as Ms C's CPN. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C complained that the board refused her support from a CPN that had previously been agreed. We found that staff had met Ms C to discuss the support she needed from CPNs. They then arranged to speak to her consultant psychiatrist to clarify what had been agreed. The psychiatrist said that this matter should be discussed at her next review meeting. We considered this had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C complained that she had then been discharged from the CPN service. We found that given the support she was receiving from other agencies at that time, there was no need for CPN involvement in her care. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained to us about the board's handling of her complaint. She said that she considered that the board should have contacted her mental health officer to discuss her complaints. We found that it had not been necessary for the board to do so to investigate the complaints. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the practice had failed to manage his medication in an appropriate manner. He had been on pramipexole medication (used as treatment for Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome) for four years and he said that during that period the practice had not reviewed the medication. Mr C said that the practice had also increased the medication dosage without telling him and that he had experienced severe side effects. Mr C felt that the practice should have kept the medication under review and informed him of the change in dosage.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We found that, during the period in question, Mr C had not reported to the practice that he was having side effects from the medication. The practice had invited Mr C to attend for a review of his medication on five occasions, but he had not responded. Mr C was also reviewed on two occasions when he attended the practice to discuss other clinical matters. We also found that it was appropriate for a pharmacist to advise Mr C of the increase in the dosage of the medication, rather than have him make an appointment with a GP. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, an advocacy and support worker, raised a complaint on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received for a bunion from Golden Jubilee National Hospital. Specifically, she complained that appropriate surgery was not carried out, that the cause of infection following surgery was not properly investigated and that Mr A had not been advised of the problems which could occur with the surgery.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic trauma surgeon and found that there was evidence to support that discussion had taken place with Mr A about the recognised complications associated with the bunion surgery. Some of these included the possible risk of non-healing and a need for further surgery. We considered that the surgery was appropriate and that, whilst there was no clear evidence of infection post-surgery, it was appropriate to consider the possibility of infection when Mr A experienced problems following his surgery. We noted that the board had apologised to Mr A regarding the lack of communication about this. We concluded that there was no evidence of unreasonable treatment and that delayed healing had been the likely reason for Mr A's protracted recovery. We did not uphold the complaint.