Not upheld, recommendations

Summary

Miss C, who had a number of health problems, complained about the care and treatment she received when she re-registered with her medical practice. After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not uphold her complaint about treatment, as we found that it was reasonable in terms of Miss C's health conditions, and there was no fault with the medical care she had received. We also accepted that, given the need for continuity of care, it was reasonable that Miss C was seen by one GP there, with a 'buddy' GP in his absence. We noted that Miss C was able to see a female GP in the event of any gynaecological health issues, and was also able to use unscheduled care services for non-routine matters. We did not uphold her complaint, but made a recommendation as we felt that it would have been beneficial if the practice had involved Miss C in deciding which GP she should see regularly.

Recommendations

We recommended that :

• should in future consider agreeing patient consultation arrangements in partnership with the patient, rather than advising the patient (without their involvement) of who they are allowed to see.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his wife (Mrs C) received from her medical practice before her death. Mrs C had a number of falls and twice fell down the stairs at home. This resulted in an ulcer on her leg and a large boil-like growth on her elbow. Mr C complained that although the practice treated Mrs C's elbow, they did nothing about the ulcer on her leg, which deteriorated.

We took independent advice from our GP medical adviser who said that although GPs do not treat leg ulcers, they should refer a patient to nurses or a service to administer dressings and compression bandages where appropriate. We found that the practice had appropriately referred Mrs C to the practice nurse and the district nursing service for treatment for her ulcers. We also found that it was reasonable that the practice did not initially consider the wound on Mrs C's leg to be an issue and did not consider that it required treatment until they reviewed it a few weeks later. We took the view that Mrs C's ulcers were appropriately treated.

Mr C also complained that the practice did not ensure that Mrs C was admitted to hospital when her condition deteriorated. The notes made by both the district nurses and the practice showed that Mrs C did not want to go into hospital at first. However, her condition deteriorated and the next day, she confirmed that she was now willing to go there. The practice then contacted two hospitals to try to arrange admission. We found that the delay in arranging this was not due to the practice's failure to respond, but due to problems in getting the hospitals to accept Mrs C as an in-patient, and that the actions of the practice had been reasonable and appropriate. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, during our investigation we identified that the district nurses, who were employed by the local health board, had not given the practice all the relevant details about the deterioration in Mrs C's condition and so we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that :

• hold a joint significant event analysis discussion with the district nurses in order to reflect and learn from this case.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board had failed to return his in-the-ear hearing aids to him after they were repaired and told him they must have been lost in the post. He said they then decided not to provide the same type as a replacement, and told him he would be given behind the ear aids instead. When Mr C complained about this, he said the board failed to fully evidence or explain why he could no longer have in-the-ear hearing aids.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers on this case and she said that the board's guidelines for hearing aid provision were arrived at properly, were ones they were entitled to apply and that the decision-making process was appropriate and in accordance with the guidance. She said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for in-the-ear hearing aids set out in the guidance.

In terms of their response to Mr C’s complaint, we considered that the board had provided a full and reasoned explanation of why Mr C no longer qualified for in-the-ear hearing aids, that their letters had been detailed and noted that they had offered to meet with Mr C to discuss his concerns.

However, we accepted that had Mr C’s original hearing aids not been lost in the post then he would not be in his current position. We also noted that he had said that the board had previously lost his hearing aids and moulds and we did not see any evidence that the board disputed this. Although, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we considered it reasonable that the board could and should have provided a more secure and reliable means of returning Mr C’s repaired hearing aids and because of this we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide Mr C with replacement in-the-ear hearing aids.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not notified him of two separate planning applications (one from 2009, the other from 2012) for neighbouring properties. In their response to his complaint, the council explained that it had been the applicant's responsibility to notify neighbours for the 2009 application. However, by the time the second application was submitted, the duty to notify had moved from the applicant to the council.

In terms of the 2009 application, the council explained that they did not have a duty to 'look beyond' the applicant's self-certification, nor had there been anything in the paperwork that would reasonably have caused the planning officer to question things. In terms of 2012, the council explained that they had advertised the planning application in the local newspaper and that notice had been served on one of Mr C's tenants (who lived on a property on Mr C's land). Although the tenant passed the notification on to Mr C and he had been able to submit his objections, Mr C felt that, in both instances, the council had failed in their duty, and he was not happy with the way they had handled his complaint about this.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He reviewed the council's responses and confirmed that they had outlined the position correctly, and had taken the appropriate steps in 2012. As such, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to notify him. Neither did we find that the council had handled his complaint inappropriately. Although they had taken longer than they would aim to in responding to Mr C's complaint, their responses had reasonably addressed his concerns, and they had contacted him to let him know that the matter was still ongoing.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• confirm the changes made to their website and standard notification letter, as detailed in their stage 1 response.
• 

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment that his wife (Mrs C) received from the perinatal (period before and after birth) psychiatric service. In particular he complained that his wife was not adequately or correctly assessed; her medication might have contributed to her illness, she was allowed unsupervised leave with their daughter when she was an assessed risk to her daughter, she was subject to undue pressure to breastfeed and that a flawed decision was made to refer his daughter to social services as a child protection case.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a clinical adviser, found that the care and treatment provided to Mrs C had been reasonable overall. There was no evidence to suggest that she had not been adequately or correctly assessed or that her medication was inappropriate. The adviser was satisfied that Mrs C was appropriately supervised and there was no evidence of undue pressure to breastfeed. However, the adviser raised some concerns over a lack of consultation with and involvement of, Mr C in his wife's care and we made recommendations to address these points.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failure to complete assessment documentation as required and to involve a carer in a manner consistent with the relevant care pathway documentation; and
• audit the use of completion of the care pathway documentation relevant to this case and consider what changes are needed to ensure documentation is properly completed and utilised.

Summary

Ms C owns a business. In November 2000 she had a water meter installed, by the predecessor of Scottish Water, which she believed would measure only her own water consumption. From 2005 onwards her average combined water and waste water charges were normally under £200. In late 2011, the use of the shop next door changed. At first, this had no apparent effect on Ms C’s bills, but for the quarter ending September 2012 her bill was almost £1000. Ms C contacted Scottish Water, and Business Stream (her licensed water provider). Investigations by a plumber and by Scottish Water found that the water supply was in fact shared with the shop next door, which was on unmeasured charges. Ms C complained to Business Stream and was unhappy with their response. She complained to us that Business Stream’s actions in relation to her shared water supply were unreasonable.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Our investigation found that Business Stream had investigated and after they realised that the supply was shared and the metered consumption was accurate, they had put recovery action for the September 2012 bill and subsequent bills on hold. They had, appropriately, encouraged Ms C to reach a private agreement with the proprietor next door. Business Stream and Scottish Water's policy was not to fit a secondary meter in such circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• consider putting a further hold on recovery action to a specified date; and
• share the details of our decision with Scottish Water to enable them to make the adjacent premises licensed provider aware of the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C was concerned that a neighbour’s CCTV cameras appeared to include his property in the field of vision. He was not satisfied with the way the council looked into his complaints about the matter. Mr C said the council gave him conflicting information about the cameras, and about the law relating to these, and whether or not planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness was required. He was unhappy with the way the council had taken the matter forward and with the information he was given and brought the complaint to us.

We did not uphold the specific complaints Mr C brought to us, but were critical of the council for an apparent lack of transparency. We said they should have verified information rather than making assumptions, and we made recommendations for improvement.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that, in future, possible relevant options for action are clearly explained to all parties involved in a complaint of a breach of planning; and
• remind staff making site visits to check and verify the information that they record and pass on, as well as keeping a written record of the visit.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr and Mrs A who were council tenants experiencing noise disturbance from their neighbours. Although council officers visited the house, their visits did not coincide with times when the neighbours were being noisy, and they concluded that the noise levels were not significant enough to be classed as anti-social. They later provided noise monitoring equipment, but again found the noise levels too low to be considered a nuisance. The council suggested several times that Mr and Mrs A go to mediation with their neighbours to try to resolve this. However, Mr and Mrs A were advised not to do so, on medical grounds. Instead, the council arranged for shuttle mediation, where the mediator meets with both parties separately. Mr C complained that the council did not take Mr and Mrs A's complaints seriously, failed to record their concerns and did not take effective action to resolve the situation. He also complained that he was refused access to the results of the noise monitoring surveys.

We acknowledged that situations such as this are difficult to resolve. Mr and Mrs A were clearly badly affected by the noise. However, for the council to take decisive action, they needed corroboration of the problem and evidence that the noise was at a level that would be considered anti-social. We were provided with records kept by Mr and Mrs A and witness statements that provided general corroboration of the problem, but did not confirm specific incidents or the severity of the noise. Where proof was available, however, our investigation found there was evidence that the council took action. We were generally satisfied that they took reasonable steps to investigate the noise, and we noted that they also considered whether there was a problem with the construction of the properties. Whether or not the noise was anti-social was a matter for the professional judgement of the council's noise officers and we were satisfied that they reached a reasoned decision.

We were, however, critical of the council for failing to fully explain the anti-social behaviour policy to Mr and Mrs A and for not recording the outcome of their complaints. Mr and Mrs A made more than 400 noise complaints, and we considered that better communication from the council could have significantly reduced this. With regard to Mr C's complaint that the council did not provide the noise monitoring reports, we found that these were technical and needed specialist interpretation. As such, we felt that the summarised information provided to Mr C was reasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their handling of Mr and Mrs A's complaints with a view to identifying better ways to explain their anti-social behaviour policy and investigations to complainants; and
• remind their staff of the importance of following up complaints of anti-social behaviour and clearly recording the decision reached on each complaint brought to them.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the planning situation at a neighbouring site. Planning permission had been granted in 2000 for a new workshop there, but during its construction his neighbour had continued to work out of a wooden shed. Mr C was concerned that the council had failed to take effective enforcement action in relation to industrial processes being carried out in the shed, which continued after the new workshop was completed.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the council had investigated his concerns and had decided not to take enforcement action. Following completion of the new workshop Mr C's neighbour voluntarily decided to submit a retrospective planning application in relation to the wooden shed. Permission was refused because it would have an adverse impact upon residential amenity. We recognised that Mr C had reasonably expected the council to take enforcement action following the refusal of this application. However, they could not do so as the shed had by that time been in continuous use for more than ten years and so was exempt from enforcement action. We also found that the council had investigated complaints about noise from the shed, but had decided to take no action as they had been unable to establish that it was a statutory noise nuisance.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, we were concerned that because the council had not applied a time limit condition to the original planning consent, it took over ten years for the workshop to be completed, and was then too late for enforcement action about the shed. Because of this we made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that, where applicable and appropriate, time limits for the commencement and completion of development are considered in the application of planning conditions to ensure effective planning control in cases of possible ongoing neighbourhood disturbance; and
• if any further complaints of noise nuisance at the site are received the council ensure appropriate noise monitoring is carried out.

Summary

Mr C needed a lot of support with housing matters. He was asked to go to his local housing office about a rent matter and called in, expecting to see one of two officers he had dealt with before, but they had both retired. He was introduced to his new housing officer, but was not happy with the way the interview went.

Mr C complained about the association’s investigation into his complaint about the housing officer, and also that the association delayed in providing him with the support of another officer.

Our investigation found that, although Mr C was unhappy with the association’s investigation of his complaint, they had treated it seriously and dealt with it properly, and gave him appropriate information in their responses. We also found that, after he complained, Mr C was allocated a different housing officer (Officer 2). However, Mr C told the association that he would rather deal with another he knew and was comfortable with (Officer 1).

Although we understood why Mr C requested this, he had at that point had no contact with Officer 2, so we did not consider it reasonable to ask the association to change arrangements, given that there had been no problems and that support was available to him.

As part of our investigation, we discovered that Officer 1 did not have capacity to support Mr C. However, we also noted that Mr C had not received a reply to his request to be allocated that officer, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to respond to Mr C's request to have a particular housing officer assigned to his case.