Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) failed to engage with him and his representative in respect of bird collision avoidance rates for wind turbines. He was concerned that SNH would not provide him with the specific figures he needed to allow him to submit an application for turbines and he was also unhappy with the way they dealt with his complaint.

We found that there was a long period where SNH had failed to respond to Mr C's representative, which had been acknowledged by SNH earlier, and we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, we did not uphold his concerns about the figures he needed as we concluded that, although SNH are committed to continually updating the figures they publish, they are not required to do so specifically at the request of a developer. We also noted that they had agreed to produce updated figures for the species Mr C was interested in (which they have now done). We also found that SNH had dealt with Mr C's complaint in line with their procedures.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about development on a site close to his home. Mr A was the former owner of the site and still held licenses from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to it. Mr A complained that works on the site were affecting his private water supply but that SEPA had done little to prevent this. He also complained that when planning applications were made to the local council, SEPA did not make a reasonable response and had understated information. Furthermore, he said that they did not make a reasonable response to his concerns about the licenses he held.

We investigated the complaint and found that SEPA had looked into Mr A's concerns but found no evidence to suggest that his water supply had been detrimentally affected. The developer had been required to apply for a license and submit data and testing information. Mr A was given appropriate advice. We also found that SEPA had made comments on the planning applications and that while Mr A would have preferred them to have made objections, this was a matter for their discretion based on their officers' professional opinion. Accordingly, these complaints were not upheld. However, we found that SEPA had unduly delayed in responding to Mr A's queries about his licenses and for this reason upheld this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C is a tenant of the council. She said that, for two years, there were water leaks from the flat above. She said this caused damage to her property as well as stress and inconvenience to herself. She complained to us that the council had delayed in completing the necessary works. She said that it took too long to find the cause of the water penetration and that, when she complained to the council, there were delays and confusion.

We found that, while the council responded appropriately to the leaks, there had been a delay of a month before necessary electrical safety checks were made. This complaint was, therefore, upheld. It had taken the council some time to find the cause of the water penetration, as there were a number of separate sources. However, we established that this was due to access problems and was outwith the council's control. When Mrs C made her complaint, however, the council did not deal with it in accordance with their stated procedures. All of Mrs C's complaints about the handling of her complaints were upheld.

We found that the council had apologised and taken action to address Mrs C's complaints. Therefore, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to repair his floor as it had been damaged by council contractors doing improvement work in his home. He was also unhappy that, when upgrading his bathroom, the council contractors had damaged a shower which belonged to him and which he told them he wanted to keep. Following investigation, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to action their commitment regarding the flooring. The council have apologised to Mr C and will arrange with Mr C for the work to take place. As the council have already taken action on this, we did not make a recommendation.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the broken shower because we found no evidence to support his recollection that the council were made aware that he wanted to keep the shower.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about the actions of his local community council. The council told Mr C that they could not consider his complaints until he had exhausted the complaints procedure of the community council. They had previously told him this in relation to another complaint he made about the community council. Mr C was dissatisfied with aspects of the council's response and complained to them that their response had contained inaccuracies and that their position was unreasonable. The council repeated their previous response to Mr C. Mr C was dissatisfied and brought his complaints to us. We found that the council's response to his first complaint was reasonable, and did not uphold that complaint. However, we found that the issues Mr C raised in his second complaint were not the same as those in his first complaint and, therefore, that the council's response to this complaint was unreasonable. We upheld Mr C's second complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about two inspections at the residential care home her mother (Mrs A) lived in. Mrs C felt it was unreasonable for the Care Inspectorate to say in their inspection report that the privacy and dignity of residents could be compromised when bedroom doors were left open. Mrs C said Mrs A preferred to have her door open so she could see what was going on and chat to visitors and passers-by. She said inspectors could have discovered this by speaking to her mother.

Mrs C said the Care Inspectorate's response to her complaint failed to take into account one of the inspection reports she complained about. We found the Care Inspectorate had agreed a list of six complaints for investigation with Mrs C. It was for the investigator to decide what weight to give different pieces of evidence. We found the Care Inspectorate made their position in respect of Mrs A's bedroom door very clear. They recognised that Mrs A's preference was to have her door open. However, this should have been discussed and recorded in Mrs A's care records, which it was not. They accepted that the report could have been better worded.

Mrs C said it had taken the Care Inspectorate too long to log and respond to her complaint. We found Mrs C's complaint was appropriately logged and acknowledged. The Care Inspectorate acted in accordance with their complaints procedure in meeting with Mrs C, in an attempt to resolve her concerns. At the end of the meeting, they quite reasonably checked whether Mrs C wanted to progress to the investigation stage. However, it took too long to respond to Mrs C's complaint at each stage of the process and we upheld Mrs C's complaint on the basis of delay.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably delayed in issuing the final invoice for works to his home required following the issue of a statutory notice in 2007. The works were carried out in 2008 but it was not until January 2015 that the invoice was issued. Mr C was also concerned that this invoice included works carried out under previous statutory notices he had already paid for.

In responding to his complaint the council confirmed that the invoice for these works was correctly itemised and they explained the works carried out under this, and previous statutory notices.

We considered the evidence provided by both parties. Having done so, we were satisfied that the council had invoiced Mr C for the correct works which were carried out under this statutory notice and that these were distinct from the additional statutory notice work carried out separately. We also noted the steps taken by the council to review each statutory notice case as part of a wider review of their property conservation department. This extensive review carried out by an external agency delayed the issuing of invoices but was carried out in order to ensure that residents were being correctly billed by the council. However, even taking account of the review, we noted that there were significant delays in the council issuing the final invoice and for this reason, we upheld this element of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client, whose husband (Mr A) had died following two hospital admissions at Perth Royal Infirmary a short period apart. Mr A had suffered two strokes in quick succession. Ms C complained that he had not been diagnosed quickly enough with a stroke on his first admission. On his second admission, Ms C complained that Mr A was not provided with medical review quickly enough and that nursing staff were slow to address his obvious pain and distress. As a result, although the family accepted that his second stroke was terminal, Ms C said that they were subjected to an unnecessarily distressing and undignified experience.

We took independent advice from a nursing adviser and a medical adviser. The medical advice stated that Mr A had received the appropriate medical care on both admissions. On his first admission, he had presented with a complex combination of medical problems, including pneumonia and infection. The decision had been taken to stabilise his condition, which was reasonable in the circumstances. Our adviser said that his stroke had been diagnosed inside a reasonable time-frame. During his second admission, we found that Mr A had been provided with a medical review within the limits imposed by the responding doctor's clinical commitments. Our nursing adviser said there were shortcomings in the nursing care provided to Mr A, but that the board had recognised and apologised for these. The board had provided an action plan, which our adviser felt addressed the shortcomings identified and were able to evidence that it was being put into action.

We found that Mr A had received reasonable medical care, although his nursing care had fallen below a reasonable standard. In view of the actions already taken by the board, however, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way in which the council’s planning department handled an application for the change of use of office buildings which neighboured their property. They raised concerns that the proper scrutiny measures were not used in assessing the application, that consultations were inadequate and that the department failed to refer the matter to Scottish Ministers. They complained about the adequacy of the council’s assessment of the application in terms of environmental impact and amenity (enjoyment of the property or surroundings). They also considered that the planning report’s reference to a similar previous application was misleading. They complained that other non-planning legislation existed that would prevent the building being used for its intended purpose. They considered that the council should have taken this into account.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. This indicated that the council advertised the application in line with the law and they carried out appropriate consultations. We were advised that the application did not fit the criteria for referral to Scottish Ministers and that the council had no obligation to subject it to further scrutiny measures. We concluded that the council appropriately assessed the application and took all relevant information into account. We considered it reasonable for the report, in outlining the area history, to have referred to a previous application. In terms of whether the operation of the proposed facility would comply with other legislation and standards, we were advised that this was a matter for relevant other authorities and/or the courts, and not the council as planning authority. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the council’s handling of the application and we did not uphold the complaints. We did uphold a complaint about a delay by the council in responding to this complaint, but we noted that they had already acknowledged and apologised for this and that the delay was not significant.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in his GP practice diagnosing him with skin cancer. He also said that they did not take his concerns seriously and that there was a delay in him receiving medication for nerve damage.

We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers who is a GP and found that the GP practice provided Mr C with a reasonable standard of treatment, making referrals to hospital specialists based on his symptoms. Whilst we were critical that Mr C could have been referred to a dermatology specialist sooner, this was not a significant delay. Furthermore, we did not consider it had any material impact on the time it would have taken for him to be seen. In addition, there was evidence to show that reasonable attempts were made by the GP practice to communicate with Mr C following his surgery. Although the GP practice apologised for the delay in giving Mr C his medication, we found that they were not entirely at fault. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint that the GP practice did not provide him with appropriate explanations about the reasons for the delay in prescribing his medication.