Not upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C, a business owner, complained that Business Stream inappropriately charged him for the water services to a neighbouring domestic property. The water supply for both properties went through Mr C's meter. During our investigation, we found that where there is a metered supply that includes a domestic property, the domestic property should not pay for water services in their council tax. Business Stream instead charge their business customer, in this case Mr C, for the metered usage. Mr C's neighbours in the domestic property should, therefore, have paid him for their consumption in a private arrangement. Business Stream's relevant policy states that they cannot become involved in any disputes about this.

That said, we made two recommendations to Business Stream, as we had concerns about the way they handled Mr C's complaints. We considered that Business Stream failed to take ownership of the complaints and failed to provide adequate advice about how Mr C could pursue the matter with his neighbour. They also incorrectly stated in a letter that Mr C was due a reimbursement from them.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for failing to provide adequate advice about how he could pursue the matter in their responses to an MSP; and incorrectly stating in a letter that he was due a reimbursement from them; and
• provide Mr C with further advice on recouping water charges from the neighbouring domestic property.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of the residents of a new housing development, which consisted of a number of buildings. Planning permission had been approved for the development on the basis that one parking space would be provided for each property. However, due to a mistake by the developer’s architect, there was a shortfall in the number of available spaces. The developer submitted a further application, changing the proposal for one of the buildings so that underground parking that was originally planned would not be provided. Ms C complained that the council approved the second planning application without considering the impact that this had on the overall parking provision for the development.

We found that it was appropriate for the second application to be considered separately and on its own merits. However, our planning adviser told us that the council should take into account the wider context of the application, including parking provision for the site as a whole. The council had said that they did not consider the parking problems on the wider site to be a material consideration when determining the second application. We were satisfied that there was clear evidence of the matter being investigated and considered fully.

Our investigation highlighted that the developer sold a number of properties to a housing association, and the proposed number of parking spaces for those properties reduced to 25 percent in line with the requirements for affordable housing. However, the properties were later to be sold as shared ownership flats, which require 100 percent parking. We noted that the council did not have a policy in place for shared ownership properties' parking at the time of sale. Once the matter was brought to their attention, however, they amended their policy and ensured that the developer would provide 100 percent parking.

Ms C also complained that the council were working with the developer to use existing landscaped space for parking. Residents found this inappropriate, as the landscaped areas were a requirement of the original planning consent and were already minimal. We found no direct evidence of the council encouraging the developer to make use of these areas or of working with the developer. However, it was clear that the council would consider any proposals put to them, including the use of landscaped areas. We did not consider this to be inappropriate, but we made a recommendation relating to the outcome of any decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• upon determining the planning application, provide a full and detailed explanation to the residents' steering group of the reasons for their decision.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. Mr A is the owner-occupier of a detached house in a modern housing estate. His rear boundary adjoins part of an avenue of trees, for which the council are responsible. Mr A considered that the trees detracted from his amenity and had over a number of years asked the council to remove the trees closest to his garden. The council had resisted this course of action as they did not consider the trees were diseased or dangerous.

Mr A said that the council's inspection of the trees had been cursory and inadequate; that they had not given proper regard to his evidence that the trees were in poor condition; had failed to provide assistance to him to remove leaves and debris falling into his garden; had failed to accept that his amenity had been detrimentally affected; and had acted prejudicially to him by not taking action on the basis that other might complain.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's five complaints, as we did not find any evidence that the council had acted improperly. However, as the council policy to which they referred was not publicised, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended the council:

• make available on its website a general statement of their current practice with regard to their responsibilities for trees in their area and the limited circumstances where they will intervene to manage or remove trees.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about her rent account, including that the association refused explain how her rent was calculated; refused to clear her rent account balance to zero; refused to refund payments made for alleged rent arrears; and refused to refund payments made by overcharging her for rent. We found that they had given advice at the outset about how the rent was calculated; and that changes in the rent due were a direct result of a reduction in her housing benefit. Arrears had arisen because she had not paid the shortfall. The association confirmed that if Ms C’s appeal about her housing benefit was successful, and the local council made a refund of backdated benefit, they would act promptly to credit her rent account.

Ms C also said that the association’s welfare rights team failed to provide her with a reasonable service but the evidence showed that they had explained their role, both in emails and in conversations with Ms C. They had explained why they could not help her pursue her complaint that housing benefit had been reduced in error, and confirmed to her that she was pursuing the correct course to appeal about the decision.

Our investigation found that the association had served Ms C with a notice to quit on three occasions, but these were not eviction notices and were served when a tenant was in arrears by a month’s rent. This was in line with the process at the time but we noted that the association changed their practices in July 2011. They now only serve notice to quit when they intend to take legal action.

As part of our investigation, we check whether the body has investigated the complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedure. In this case, we found that they had decided not to offer Ms C the chance to take her complaint to a complaints panel. The association accepted that this was incorrect.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• send a formal apology for not responding appropriately to Ms C's complaint;
• send a letter of explanation and formal apology to Ms C for failures in the handling of her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with an opportunity to take her complaint to a complaints panel, should she so wish.

Summary

Mrs C was on medication for serious mental health problems. She registered with a new medical practice in 2011, having been stable for a number of years on an existing medication regime. However, the new practice did not obtain her medical records nor make contact with the psychiatrist who had been treating her previously.

In March 2012, Mrs C attended the practice about a non-related medical issue and saw a doctor. During the appointment, the doctor questioned the medication regime and said that Mrs C should undergo a review, as the types of medication she was on could have serious cumulative side effects if taken long term. Mrs C was upset and anxious that the doctor proposed reviewing her medication, given that she had been stable on the regime for a number of years and had had serious difficulties in achieving this stability. She was also upset by the doctor's tone and a number of comments he made during the consultation which she felt were inappropriate when dealing with a patient with mental health problems.

We found that the aims of the consultation were valid and constituted good practice. We were, however, critical that the practice failed to obtain Mrs C's medical records or to contact her psychiatrist, as she had registered with them nearly a year before. We noted that the doctor had written details of his comments in the consultation notes, and that he himself had since accepted that these may have added to her concerns. We were critical of this, and for the fact that he did not conduct an assessment of Mrs C's health at that time, although we recognised this could have been difficult given the nature of the consultation overall. On balance, however, we did not uphold the complaint as we found the aims of the consultation about which Mrs C had complained were reasonable and should have been undertaken earlier. We did, however, make recommendations to address the shortcomings we identified that took place before the consultation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• conduct a significant event analysis in relation to Mrs C's treatment; and
• implement a procedure to ensure that all previous medical history and treatment is obtained when registering new patients.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she received from a hospital. She outlined eight specific areas of concern, including communication, standard of care, waiting times, lack of after care and competence of staff. She said that she initially went to the hospital with symptoms of bowel disease, but her worsening symptoms suggested a gynaecological problem. She said that after that she experienced other health issues. She underwent an operation and was referred for treatment to another health board. Ms C’s complaint to us also included other issues of concern including misdiagnosis, inappropriate administration of medication and poor complaints handling.

Our medical adviser considered all aspects of Ms C’s complaints and said that she displayed complex symptoms and had had a thorough investigation of her gastro-intestinal tract. She had an ovarian cyst (a sac filled with fluid that forms on or inside an ovary) removed promptly and an area of endometriosis (small pieces of womb lining found outside of the womb) destroyed. We found that medication was appropriately used, communication was effective and Ms C received timely inpatient attention and after care. Having taken account of all the evidence and the advice received, we considered that the board appropriately addressed and responded to all Ms C’s complaints. Although we did not uphold her complaints, we found some delay in advising Ms C's GP of a test result.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise for the delay in sending the results of the echocardiogram test to the GP; and
• take steps to ensure such a delay does not recurr.

Summary

Mr C complained about the treatment he received from his dentist in 2009. He had problems with a crown on one of his teeth. He said that the dentist told him that it could no longer support a crown, it had to be removed and a bridge structure from a neighbouring tooth would be a remedy. The tooth was removed with difficulty (it took twenty minutes) and a temporary denture was fitted. Particles of bone later broke through the surface of the gum. Nine months later Mr C returned to the practice and saw another dentist as his had left. The new dentist said that the suggestion of a crown and bridge structure was not practicable and that it would cost several thousand pounds to rectify the problem privately. Mr C was shocked at the cost as he had expected that treatment costs would be in the region of several hundred pounds. He complained that the dentist failed to provide him with a reasonable standard of dental treatment and a treatment plan, or to explain the likely costs prior to carrying out the dental treatment.

After taking independent advice from our dental adviser, we found that that the dentist's decision to extract the tooth and the extraction itself were reasonable. We also found evidence that Mr C was provided with a treatment plan of the extraction and replacement denture, and about costs. Although we found no treatment plan for any potential bridgework discussed between Mr C and the dentist, we considered that this was also reasonable. This is because any further work that might be required would normally be discussed later with the patient when they returned for the treatment. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, but we made recommendations about two related points that we noted during our investigation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• consider taking preoperative x-rays of teeth that are going to be extracted; and
• ensure all treatment plans are signed by the patient and scanned into the dental records.

Summary

Mrs C told us that following the early birth of her baby, who has disabilities, she was supported by a social worker who provided a range of helpful information and advice. Mrs C said that the social worker told her that costs for travel to work, meals and childcare could be deducted from her earnings when calculating the upper earnings threshold for carer's allowance. Mrs C made a claim for carer's allowance when she started working. Some six years later her claim was reviewed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Mrs C was told that she was not entitled to deduct expenses for meals and travel to work from her earnings and that she had earned more than she was entitled to while claiming carer's allowance. Mrs C was told that she had to pay back £14,888 in overpaid carer's allowance.

Mrs C complained that the council had provided incorrect advice. The council said that they were not providers of expert advice in relation to DWP benefit claims. They said that they provided support, in good faith, to help people navigate their way through systems which could be complex. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, as the records held by the council confirmed that advice and support, including advice in respect of benefit entitlement, had been provided but there was no evidence that specific and incorrect advice about earnings disregards had been given. As there was no evidence to show whether the council had provided incorrect advice we could not substantiate the complaint. We did, however, make a recommendation to try to make the council's responsibilities clearer to clients in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue written guidance to staff working directly with members of the public, particularly where there is a degree of dependence or vulnerability, to clarify what kinds of advice can legitimately be given by council staff and when clients should be signposted for specific and detailed advice from professional experts in welfare benefits.

Summary

Mr C lives in a village, which is a conservation area. He complained that the council did not take into account the relevant conservation area policies when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. He was particularly concerned because two previous applications were refused on the grounds that the proposals did not improve or enhance the conservation area, privacy levels would be unacceptably reduced and parking provisions proposed were substandard. He felt there had not been any improvements to these issues when the third application was granted.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we found that the application had been handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. We noted that the proposed extension would be harled (a process of covering stonework with plaster containing small pebbles or stone chips). Although Mr C was opposed to this because other properties in the street were sandstone, the village's conservation area character appraisal listed harling as a traditional material, and described it as one of the unifying elements of the townscape. We also noted that relevant case law says that proposals did not actually have to enhance a conservation area, and if a proposal was neutral and caused no harm, this was acceptable. We noted that the previous refusal because of a lack of parking provision was not in fact a material consideration, and the council's explanations about this could have been clearer. We did not uphold the complaint but drew to the council's attention a number of ways they could have improved their handling of Mr C's complaint, and their explanations for the decision made.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Mr C with the correct calculations for the overshadowing and sunlighting as referred to within the third application.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to consider well documented problems with a road when considering his insurance claims for damage to his car. On three occasions Mr C's car had been damaged by potholes and loose chippings on a stretch of the road. The road had been surface dressed by contractors employed by the council in 2010. During the severe weather of winter 2010/2011, the surface dressing had failed. One of the claims was settled, but the council's insurers passed the claim made in April 2011 to the contractor's insurers, who also denied liability and said that the council were responsible for the maintenance of the road. The final claim was made in August 2011 and the council had prepared an internal report which explained that appropriate maintenance inspections and repairs had been carried out at the relevant stretch of road over that time period.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had taken into account the problems with road surface dressing, and had decided that the contractors were liable for this. We do not reach findings in relation to liability or discretionary decisions (decisions that the council were entitled to take). We did, however, criticise the council for leaving motorists in a position that meant they could not claim against either the council or the contractors as both denied liability, particularly as the council accepted there were problems. We suggested that the council as the local authority may wish to address that situation. We also found that although the August 2011 claim was dealt with appropriately, the April 2011 claim was not, because the council did not prepare an internal report. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reconsider Mr C's April 2011 claim.