Resolved, no recommendations

Summary

C complained that the dentist failed to provide them with a reasonable standard of dental care and treatment, resulting in significant deterioration. C had concerns about x-rays and the dentist's complaint response. Following contact from our office, the dentist offered a resolution which C accepted. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) regarding the partnership's decision not to backdate kinship care allowance. The partnership confirmed that they had reviewed matters in light of new Scottish Government guidance and would be willing to apologise to A and calculate the allowance due. C confirmed that this would resolve the complaint and we closed our investigation.

Summary

C complained about the lack of support from the council’s social work department following the death of their parent. C had sought help and support for them and their younger sibling (A). During the years that A was under the age of 16, C reached out numerous times. C said that they did not know whether or not they were capable of looking after A. C was not supported by the council during this time and A remained in C’s care. C was also not given appropriate information about seeking a kinship care order, which would have enabled them to access kinship care assistance. By the time the council offered advice, A had reached the age of 16 and was too old for a kinship order to be sought. As a result, C and A did not have any general support, or financial support during the time A was a child and in C’s care.

The council did not acknowledge any failings and considered that they had acted appropriately. During our investigation, the advice we received indicated that the council should have considered A to potentially be an eligible child earlier than they did and did not help with legal costs which had a significant impact as A then became too old. This impacted C and A going forward as A did not have access to throughcare (i.e. support from social work into young adulthood as a care experienced person).

During discussions, it was identified that an ex-gratia payment may be appropriate to resolve the case. After some consideration the council offered a payment of £8000. C felt that this was an acceptable amount and accepted the offer. Therefore, we discontinued our investigation and closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained about the fitting of new windows to their property. C said there was wind, water, and noise ingress and the window units were not fitted correctly - specifically that they were not the correct size. When reporting this to the council, some workmen agreed with C’s position and others considered that there was no issue. C took photographs of holes around the windows before these were covered with MDF wood by the council. C told us that the council had not repaired the holes; instead they had packed the holes with insulation before providing new MDF surrounds.

Our initial view of the complaint indicated that the council had not appropriately investigated the issues C reported, and may have not appropriately resolved matters (i.e. by covering with MDF and using insulation). The council asked the manufacturer of the windows to inspect them. The manufacturer said that the window units were not faulty. The council then decided that nothing further could be done. Our initial assessment of the complaint identified that the council could not evidence the outcome of the manufacturer inspection. As such, we asked the council if they would be willing to arrange an independent inspection and report and take any follow-up actions identified to resolve the issues. The council initially declined this opportunity but later felt it would be appropriate for them to take this action.

Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved as the council agreed to take the action requested. However, we have made clear if the issue is not resolved and/or C remains unhappy that they can come back to us and we may re-open the complaint and consider it further. We have asked the council to provide evidence of the action taken.

Summary

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained on behalf of their client (A) who suffered from thyroid eye disease (an autoimmune disease in which the eye muscles and fatty tissue behind the eye become inflamed). A complained that the treatment provided by the board had been ineffective and requested a second opinion and a review of the treatment that they had received to date.

We took independent initial advice from a consultant ophthalmologist (a specialist in the study and treatment of disorders and diseases of the eye). We found that while the board had obtained a second opinion on A’s condition and plan of care moving forward, they had promised to review A’s past care and treatment which had not been done. The board have now confirmed that a consultant has been found to review the relevant treatment and this has been agreed by all parties as a resolution to this complaint.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their client (A), who has looked after their grandchildren since the sudden death of the children's parent (B) but never received kinship care allowance.

A kinship care assessment commenced and the outcome was that A was not suitable to be approved as kinship carer. However, a Children's Hearing panel decided that both children should remain in the care of A (contrary to the recommendation of social work).

A couple of years later the children's other parent (D) died (and it was stated by C that D would not have been able to look after the children prior to that). After this, C states a regular payment was given to A, albeit less than the kinship care rate. C states that the children had previously had a social worker involved and A had worked with social work regarding the care of the children, and that they had asked A to look after them following their parents (B) death.

C considered that A was eligible for an allowance because the children are 'looked after' as they were cared for under a Section 25 arrangement Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and then a Compulsory Supervision Order. C refers to Regulations 36, 38 & 39 in The Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009. C was concerned about the length of time taken to commence a kinship care assessment and that this was not commenced at the point that the council asked C to look after the children. The council stated that there is a new kinship care assessment in progress.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their late parents (A) about the quality and management of home care provided to them by a third party organisation acting for the partnership. In response, the partnership highlighted a number of implemented and planned changes to the policy/procedure and provision of care.

The most significant of these was a move from a mixed model of care provision, i.e. partly in house and partly external independent care providers, to a fully internal model for all people who do not choose a particular care provider (under self-directed support) to deliver their care needs. This move will be ongoing through 2023/24.

The partnership’s response was discussed with C, who agreed that the changes resolved their concerns. The complaint was closed as resolved.

Summary

C complained about Business Stream's communication regarding their account. There was also disagreement between C and Business Stream over the amount owed in respect of the account.

Business Stream accepted an unreasonable length of time had been taken regarding the matter and that they could have been more proactive in seeking some information from C. In seeking information from Business Stream to assist in investigating the complaints, we advised them of the amount C believed was owed in respect of the account and if Business Stream accepted this amount, that C would consider the matter resolved. Business Stream and C came to agreement over the amount owed in respect of the account. Therefore, given that resolution had been achieved and the matter resolved in C's view, there were no grounds for us to continue the investigation and discontinued it.

Summary

C complained that the board failed to provide appropriate care for their parent (A) when they were admitted to A&E. A had a cut on their leg which was not treated because the board said they had not been made aware of it. C said that this was not acceptable, noting that patients are not always able to make staff aware of their symptoms.

We reviewed the medical records and took independent advice from a consultant in emergency and retrieval medicine. We noted that the explanations provided by the board as to why they were not aware of the wound, and did not treat it at the time, did not tally with the information in the medical records, where it was noted that A had been admitted with a cut to the knee. We progressed the complaint to investigation and asked the board to comment on the initial findings and suggested a resolution approach would be welcome. The board responded, stating they wished to move to resolution and would meet the outcomes asked for. We accepted this outcome.

Summary

C complained about the withdrawal of their student award by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). SAAS acknowledged errors in this case, but stated that they had no alternative but to withdraw funding immediately when they became aware of their mistake. We asked SAAS whether they had given any consideration to the impact on C of their decision, why they were unable to take alternative action, why the errors appeared to have been made on multiple occasions and why funding had to be withdrawn without warning. We asked SAAS to reconsider whether they could resolve C’s complaint, after they had previously rejected this approach.

SAAS proposed the following resolution:

reinstation of the student fees for session 2021-22 and paying the amount directly to the relevant university on C’s behalf

pay tuition fees for session 2022-2023 on the basis that C had a reasonable expectation to funding for their course of study. C would need to submit an online application for this session and funding would be awarded on receipt of this.

C agreed to this resolution, and the case was closed accordingly.