Not upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C said he was experiencing problems with noise in his house. He said that although the council had installed soundproofing boards there were gaps, and a sound test had shown that there was a weak spot in the living room next to the window. He said the council had told him that his kitchen met the current standards for soundproofing and that his living room was just below the standard, so they were not prepared to carry out any further work.

In response to our enquiries the council said that there were no building regulations on standards for noise transference on older properties such as Mr C's. Although they noted that there would always be an element of day-to-day living noise in such properties, they said they were prepared to arrange for an inspection of the gaps in the boarding and to carry out any necessary repairs. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that an officer from building services inspects the gaps in the boarding and carries out any necessary repair work, as promised by the chief executive.

Summary

Ms C had had to leave her accommodation, and was looking for a tenancy, when she learned that she was pregnant. The council provided short-term accommodation and assessed her as being unintentionally homeless, in priority need with a local connection and entitled to settled accommodation. Meanwhile, she was offered temporary accommodation. After her child was born Ms C received two offers of permanent housing, one from the council and one from a housing association. She refused both. The council did not accept that Ms C’s refusal of the second offer was reasonable. However, because of issues in handling her appeal, they, unusually, made a further offer, which Ms C also refused. The council again regarded her grounds of refusal to have been unreasonable. They said that they had discharged their duty to Ms C as a homeless person and that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation. She complained to us that the council had failed to take appropriate account of the representations she made in appealing the third offer.

Our investigation found, however, that the council had given full consideration to Ms C’s representations. In particular, they had ensured that these had been properly assessed, by both an external agency and by them, using a multi-agency assessment matrix. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint, but in view of her circumstances, we did make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• meet with Ms C at an early date to explore options for her early rehousing in either socially rented or private accommodation, and to discuss whether she might be assisted through initiatives such as the rent deposit guarantee scheme.

Summary

Mr C owns a flat which he rents out. The flat is in a tenement that was the subject of a statutory notice in respect of roof repairs, served on owners in February 2007 under the provisions of The City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. In May 2008, owners were told that in the absence of any agreement by owners to undertake the necessary works, the council had appointed a firm of surveyors to administer these. In October 2009 the surveyors told owners that the contract had been awarded, and told them the estimated costs, start date and duration. The works were carried out by October 2010. During the contract, the surveyors made regular site visits, paid out progressive instalments of the contract fee and sent a number of update newsletters to owners. Accounts for the share of the costs were sent to owners in December 2012.

Mr C had not received any of the previous correspondence, and said that he only became aware of the works when his tenant forwarded the invoice. He made information requests to the council, and complained to them. He then complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable steps to notify him of the statutory notice served on his property, and to demonstrate that they followed their own procedures when evaluating and controlling the works.

Our investigation found that the council and their agents had sent the relevant letters to Mr C's flat to let him know about the works, as they had no alternative address for him. They had also responded to Mr C’s requests for information. Although he was not satisfied, the evidence we saw demonstrated that the surveyors administering the contract on behalf of the council had properly controlled and evaluated work through regular site visits, and had sought to keep all owners updated. In the light of these findings, we did not uphold the complaint as the council's actions, and those of the surveyors acting on their behalf, were reasonable. As, however, we have commented on the limitations of the council’s database of owners in other complaints, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• update the Ombudsman on the outcome of their attempts to access the landlord registration database, for the purpose of identifying the important group of non-resident owners of properties.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to uphold a public right of way, following works by a landowner. These works meant that a channel of water that could previously be crossed on foot had been deepened. Although the council had provided details of an alternative route, Mr C complained that they had failed to uphold the right of way. He also complained that the alternative route was blocked by various fences and so was impassable.

When we reviewed the correspondence, we found that Mr C had not complained to the council about the fences that he alleged blocked the alternative route. The law does not normally permit us to investigate a complaint until it has fully completed the council’s complaints procedure (unless we do not consider it reasonable to expect this). As we considered this to be a serious allegation, we felt that it would be appropriate and reasonable for the council to firstly have a chance to respond. Although we did not consider that point further in determining Mr C’s complaint, we made a recommendation that they should do so.

When we considered the rest of Mr C's complaint, we found that the fundamental issue he was complaining about related to the council’s legal obligations under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. We can only look at what happened in terms of administration and cannot rule on legality, which is a matter for the courts. We reviewed the information that the council gave Mr C about possible alternative access, and on balance, did not consider that there had been an administrative failing on their part. Although we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint, we made a further related recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• respond to Mr C's allegation that the alternative access is impassable; and
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they have, as detailed in a letter to Mr C, contacted the property owner to remind them of their obligations.

Summary

Mrs A lives in a care home and needs 24 hour nursing care as she has numerous medical conditions. Her son (Mr C) considered that her medical and nursing needs met the criteria for continuing care funding (funding provided by the NHS for specialist clinical or nursing treatment) set out in the Scottish Government's guidance document (CEL6). The board assessed Mrs A's needs, but did not consider that she met the criteria for continuing care funding. Mr C appealed this, but funding was again refused. He complained to us about the board's assessment of his mother's eligibility. He did not believe the assessment process had been followed correctly or that he and the professionals who directly care for his mother were sufficiently involved in it.

We found that, in terms of the assessment of Mrs A's clinical and nursing needs, the board took an appropriately multi-disciplinary approach, using a single assessor to gather information and comments from various professionals involved in Mrs A's care. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied that the board had suitable tools in place to properly assess Mrs A's eligibility for continuing care funding and that the assessor was able to reach a clear, reasoned and evidence-based conclusion. The overall assessment was appropriate and well-documented.

That said, we considered the board failed to properly involve Mr C and the care home in the initial assessment and made recommendations relating to this. We were also critical of their communication and explanations of the assessment process and the purpose of a meeting that Mr C attended. However, we noted that these issues were largely resolved at the appeal stage.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C and Mrs A for failing to properly include them in the initial assessment; and
• consider adding a section to their decision-making tool, which records the views of relatives, carers and other stakeholders, such as care home staff.

Summary

Mr C injured his neck and back when he fell from his bike. He attended hospital, where he was admitted, treated and discharged. Several weeks later he had a scan at an out-patient appointment at another hospital. This identified a small fracture in one of his vertebrae (the bones of the spine) and injuries to discs in his back. When Mr C complained to the board that only the second hospital identified this, the board acknowledged that the small fracture had been visible on the first hospital's x-rays, although they said they did not believe that this had led to Mr C’s later problems. Mr C was also unhappy that the board told him that the damage to his discs had been caused by an existing, underlying condition and not the fall.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, an experienced consultant in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. He reviewed Mr C’s medical records and also the x-rays taken in the first hospital. He said that, although the fracture had been visible on these x-rays, it was difficult to identify. He also said that if it had been identified then, it would not have merited additional investigation nor would it have changed Mr C’s treatment at the time. The adviser also explained that Mr C’s disc injuries were caused by wear and tear over a period of years, and added that the fact that Mr C had not felt any symptoms before his accident did not mean that the accident had caused them. We also took advice from our hospital adviser. He indicated that it is standard practice for x-rays and scans to be formally reported upon fairly soon after they are taken. However, in Mr C’s case, there was a delay – which he indicated was not ideal - between a scan being taken at the first hospital and then being formally reported upon. He noted that the fracture was identified in the formal report available after Mr C’s discharge.

We accepted the advice and, on balance, considered that Mr C’s treatment – based on the information available at the time and without the benefit of hindsight - had been reasonable. We did not uphold his complaints although, in light of the delay in the formal report of the initial scan, we did make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• review departmental processes for formal imaging reports, in light of the Royal College of Radiologists’ guidance.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about a dentist. Ms C said the dentist failed to provide Mrs A with reasonable dental treatment when extracting three teeth. She said that he failed to remove a fragment of bone from Mrs A’s lower gum, resulting in infection, pain and discomfort, and that the follow-up treatment was not appropriate.

We obtained independent advice from our dental adviser. The adviser explained that fragments of bone can occur during the extraction process. They are quite often not seen until several days after the extraction and can come out themselves without any clinical intervention. The adviser said the fact that a fragment of bone remained after the extraction was not caused by inappropriate treatment, and that the dentist could not unreasonably fail to remove a fragment that was not evident to him at the time. The adviser said it seemed unlikely that the dentist would have identified a fragment of bone in Mrs A’s gum and then knowingly left it in place.

In terms of the follow-up treatment, the adviser said the records suggested that, on the whole, the treatment provided at two of the three follow-up appointments was reasonable. However, because of the dentist's poor record-keeping, it was not possible to say whether the treatment Mrs A received at the remaining appointment was reasonable. Because of this, although we did not uphold Ms C's complaint, we were critical of the dentist’s record-keeping.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• reviews the Faculty of General Dental Practice clinical examination and record-keeping good practice guidelines and ensure that he follows these in future.

Summary

After Mr C was discharged from hospital following an operation on his bladder, he complained that his GP failed to visit him to review his wound or to provide him with treatment for a urine infection.

The clinical records showed that when Mr C contacted the practice, the GP had asked a district nurse to visit him to dress his wound. When the nurse attended, she noted that Mr C was feeling well. She visited again a couple of days later and noted that he was still improving. When the GP called him six days later, Mr C reported that he was still feeling well, but when the GP mentioned that a urine infection had been noted after an initial post-discharge district nurse's visit, Mr C became upset. Two days later Mr C contacted the practice to complain of significant pain and cloudy urine. He was then prescribed antibiotics.

We took independent advice on this case from one of our medical advisers, who is a qualified GP. He said that it was appropriate for Mr C's wound to be dealt with by district nursing staff. He also advised that it was reasonable, given the continued improvement in Mr C's condition, that the practice did not initially prescribe antibiotics for the urine infection. As the care provided by the GP was reasonable, we did not uphold the complaint. We did, however, make a recommendation to ensure that in future patients are kept fully informed about test results.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• review the way test results are communicated to patients, either by contacting them directly to provide the results or by requesting that patients contact the practice within a set timescale to obtain their results.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had told him they would not deal with his complaint about their insurance third party administrator. We found that the council had not clearly explained to Mr C that they would accept complaints about administrative matters, but not about the decision-making of the administrator. However, we found it reasonable that they did not consider his complaints about the decision-making as this was open to challenge through the courts, and which Mr C subsequently successfully pursued.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that all staff are aware that they can accept complaints about organisations acting on behalf of the council, and can accept complaints about the administrative handling of any insurance claim.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about the way in which the association dealt with a leak from his flat into his downstairs neighbour's property. He said they failed to identify the real cause of the leak as a broken pipe and unreasonably issued him with an invoice for the repairs. In reaching our decision on this complaint, we considered only whether the association followed their procedures and whether their actions were reasonable (as it was not for us to determine what caused the leak into the downstairs flat).

The evidence showed that, in determining the cause of the leak, the association considered various evidence, including a statement from the plumber who investigated the problem. The wood under the tiles on Mr C's bathroom floor was found to be soaking wet, including in areas where there were no pipes. Although Mr C thought that the plumber found a leak behind the sink, the association explained that the plumber said that this happened during his investigation on his final visit and he had fixed it within 15 minutes. He found no existing leaks in the pipes, and the association concluded that the damage had been caused over time by the way Mr C was bathing. They also provided six photographs showing water leakage over much of Mr C's bathroom floor. We found that as the association had decided that the cause of the water entering the downstairs property was excessive water being spilt on Mr C's bathroom floor, and not a leak from a pipe, their decision to invoice him for repair costs was in line with procedure. We did not uphold his complaint as the evidence showed that the association followed their procedures and that their actions were reasonable. We did, however, make a recommendation as the association did not have a record of all the repairs visits made to Mr C's property.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• feed back our decision on this complaint to their staff in order to ensure better record-keeping in future.