Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board had failed to carry out appropriate investigations to identify the cause of her severe weight loss, decline in cognition and reduced mobility, when she was admitted to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh on two occasions. She said that staff only seemed to be interested in her brain injury, which was already being dealt with by staff at another hospital. We took independent advice on this part of her complaint from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant in geriatric and general medicine.

We found that staff in the hospital had carried out appropriate levels of investigations and had made appropriate referrals to other specialities. They had considered Mrs C's condition and problems appropriately and there was no evidence that they focused unreasonably on one part of her health and failed to address others. Other aspects of her care were reasonable and, consequently, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mrs C also complained that staff had failed to provide her with an appropriate level of nursing care. We obtained independent advice from a nursing adviser on this complaint and found that some aspects of her nursing care had been reasonable. However, Mrs C had developed a pressure ulcer whilst in the hospital and we found that she should have received better care in relation to this. There should also have been further discussion with Mr and Mrs C about her personal hygiene needs. In addition, her food charts had not been fully completed. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. That said, we did not make any recommendations to the board, as we found that they had apologised to Mrs C for these failings, and we had made recommendations to the board that addressed these failings in similar cases previously.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her mother (Mrs A) had received inadequate medical supervision and nursing care whilst in Stobhill Hospital. Mrs C said there were not enough medical staff available on the rehabilitation ward Mrs A had been placed on and that Mrs A's consultant had been uninterested in her case. She said Mrs A had been fed inappropriate food, and treated without dignity or respect. Mrs C said the family had fought to have her discharged into their care and they were unhappy about the board's failure to take their complaint seriously. Mrs C noted that it had taken months for the board to produce minutes of the meeting held with the family to discuss the complaint.

Our investigation took independent medical and nursing advice. The medical advice noted that the specific complaints raised by Mrs C were mostly nursing issues. The level of clinical supervision was adequately documented, and showed regular and appropriate recordings of medical review. The nursing advice received was that the level of nursing care overall was reasonable, although the board had admitted there were deficits in the care. The nursing adviser suggested that the board should provide evidence of the actions taken to improve nursing care.

The board provided a comprehensive and detailed action plan, showing improvements to patient care following the complaint. We found that the board had apologised appropriately and taken reasonable steps to improve patient care, and that no further action would be appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A. He said Mr A's flat had not been redecorated as promised whilst Mr A was staying in temporary accomodation. Work on his kitchen had not been completed, and a damp problem within the bathroom had not been completely rectified. Mr C also said Mr A felt the investigation into his complaint had been partial and had unfairly discounted his version of events.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged that Mr A's kitchen work and bathroom work had not been completed, and we upheld these complaints. The council had apologised and proposed an appropriate solution. Mr A had, however, subsequently moved tenancy and so we made no further recommendations. We found the council's investigation into Mr A's complaint had been conducted in line with their complaints handling policy and that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint against the council.

Summary

Mrs C told us that when she and her son (Mr A) moved onto a caravan site they were told by the site owner it was an all-year-round residential site. They later found out that there was a site licence condition which limited residency to eight months per year. Mrs C and Mr A said that when they went to register to pay council tax, the council should have alerted them to the licence condition. We accepted the council's position, which was that the site licence condition was not of significance in relation to council tax liability. Officers responsible for council tax only had to establish whether the caravan was occupied as Mrs C and Mr A's main or only residence. The council said, and we agreed, that the terms of Mrs C and Mr A's lease or rental agreement was a matter between them and the site owner.

Mrs A and Mr C said a council officer came on site without good reason and discussed their private business within hearing distance of other people. We found that the council officer did not show his identification when he went on site and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. The council had already apologised for this. Mr A refused to speak to the council officer. Mrs C and Mr A said that there was no need for the council's visit as they had already been to the council office to tell the council that they were moving and where they were going to. The council confirmed the visit but said Mrs C and Mr A did not provide a forwarding address. We found that the council were entitled to visit the site either to check the information they were given or to get further details. In this case they needed a forwarding address and to confirm a leaving date so they could end the council tax liability. We found, on balance, that there was not enough evidence to confidently say whether Mr A's private business had been discussed in front of other people and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council gave his client (Mr A) misleading advice about the storage of his belongings during a homelessness application, and that they unreasonably delayed in responding to Mr A's requests for assistance.

Mr A's property was being repossessed, and there was likely to be a period between him leaving that property and taking up a new tenancy. Mr A said that he had been told by the council that, if he were to become homeless during this period, the council could provide storage for his belongings. He was later told that the council's policy had changed and they could no longer provide storage. However, in Mr A's case, storage was not required as the council had secured an extension to the repossession of his property, meaning he could move directly to a new property. Although we recognise that the process of making a homelessness application was very stressful for Mr A, we were satisfied that the council did not mislead Mr A. We accept their reasoning that storage was not needed as they were able to negotiate an extension to the repossession of Mr A's property which allowed time for him to be offered a permanent housing arrangement.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to communicate with Mr A following his referral from an NHS service to the council's customer and community services team. We noted the impact that Mr A said the delay in communication had on his existing poor health. The council had acknowledged the delay and apologised for it, so although we upheld the complaint, we did not make any recommendations. We were satisfied that the council had apologised and taken appropriate action to try to prevent this from happening again.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her father (Mr A) when he was admitted to Monklands Hospital. Mrs C also had concerns about the handling of the complaint she subsequently made to the board.

Mr A was suffering from heart failure and was being cared for at home when he had a fall at home. He was seen by his GP who diagnosed a urinary tract infection and prescribed antibiotics (a range of drugs to fight bacterial infections). Mr A's condition deteriorated and he was referred by an out-of-hours GP to the hospital. The admission record noted his confusion, decreased mobility and the diagnosis by the GP. A urine sample was taken and x-rays were taken.

Mr A was reviewed the next morning and considered ready for discharge home with support from ASSET (a multi-disciplinary home care team) but the family were concerned that he was not well enough. Mr A was kept in hospital and given further antibiotics. He had a number of falls while in hospital that Mrs C felt contributed to his eventual death, which occurred less than three weeks after admission.

Our investigation included taking independent advice from two of our advisers, a physician specialising in the care of the elderly and a senior nurse. Our advisers were satisfied that the care and treatment provided were reasonable in the circumstances. Mr A was appropriately assessed and monitored for risk of falls, and the physician adviser was of the view that the initial consideration of discharge with support was reasonable.

On the matter of the complaints handling, we identified unreasonable delays which the board had already acknowledged and apologised for to Mrs C. Appropriate remedial action had been taken to minimise the risk of a recurrence. Although we upheld this complaint, no further recommendations were made.

Summary

Mr C told us that when he attended Ninewells Hospital after he was referred by his GP he was told on arrival by a doctor that he should be at a different hospital. He said that another doctor then arrived in the waiting area, apologised for the mix-up and referred him to the phlebotomy department (which deals with taking blood samples). Mr C wrote to the board to complain about the conduct of staff on duty whilst he was at the hospital. Mr C disagreed with the board's response that the staff concerned could only remember limited information, and brought his complaint to us.

We did not take Mr C's complaint about staff conduct any further as there was no way for us to independently verify the truth of statements given.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the board's handling of his complaint as we found the board failed to deal properly with Mr C's complaint about staff conduct. The board failed to seek clarification on Mr C's specific concerns and consider all points. We did not make any recommendations as the board have already taken steps to prevent a re-occurrence of the problems Mr C experienced.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) handled his funding application unreasonably. He was in extended correspondence with them before formally complaining and, after he did so, he was also unhappy at their handling of his complaint. Mr C had raised two unsuccessful court actions – both funded by SLAB – and was considering raising a third. SLAB then funded a legal opinion about the possible third action, which Mr C wished to discuss with his legal representatives. However, SLAB refused to fund that and Mr C felt that this was unreasonable.

We cannot question SLAB’s discretionary decision making without maladministration in their decision-making process. SLAB’s guidance said matters would be judged on their own merits, but that they would also consider the steps that a private client of modest means would take. It also said a recipient of legal aid should not be put in a better position than such a private client. We considered the guidance meant SLAB had to use an element of judgment and, although Mr C felt a private client would have paid for the consultation, that was as much a matter of interpretation as SLAB’s position. We recognised the significance of this for Mr C, but his disagreement with SLAB’s decision did not mean there had been maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

We had originally upheld Mr C’s second complaint because, on the basis of the paperwork originally available, SLAB had not responded to one of his letters. However, SLAB then contacted us to say that they had actually responded to Mr C and gave us a copy of their response. Although they had replied to Mr C, we maintained our original decision to uphold Mr C’s complaint because we felt our initial contact with SLAB had made them aware of Mr C’s concerns about their complaints handling. In any event, we had then formally requested all relevant documents from them and, at that point, they confirmed in writing that they had given us everything (although it turned out that this piece of correspondence was missing).

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had acted unreasonably by refusing grant funding and registration for a tenants and residents association. After discussing this with him, we found it appeared that the council had not fully explained how they had reached their decision. We, therefore, decided that in the first instance it would be appropriate for Mr C and the council to meet in an effort to resolve some of his complaints. The council and Mr C agreed to meet and we closed his complaint to allow this to happen.

Mr C subsequently complained, however, that he was unhappy with the council's explanation. We investigated and upheld two of his complaints, as we found that there was unreasonable delay in processing the tenants and residents association's application for a grant, and there were failures in communication. We did not find it necessary to make recommendations, as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to try to avoid this happening again. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint of discrimination in the decision not to award a grant.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MP, complained on behalf of his constituent (Mr A) about the council's involvement in a investigation by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) into possible benefit fraud. Mr A was unhappy that the council had been involved in the investigation and had attended interviews with an officer from the DWP when he was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit. He was also unhappy about how council staff had spoken to him when he attended for an interview at council offices, and with the accuracy of two sets of notes from one of the interviews and about the handling of his complaint.

During our investigation the council confirmed that their officer should not have been involved in the interviews as Mr A was not in receipt of council tax or housing benefit, and that they had apologised to Mr A for their handling of this. They had also explained to him what they had done to try to ensure a similar situation did not occur in the future. As it was clear that the officer should not have attended the interviews with Mr A we upheld this complaint. The council had also apologised for the service Mr A received when he attended their offices, and again explained the action taken as a result of his complaint. Given the poor level of service Mr A had received we also upheld this complaint. Because the council had already taken action on the issues, however, we did not make any recommendations.

We did not uphold Mr A's other complaints. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had addressed his concern about the accuracy of the minutes and had explained why two sets of notes for the same meeting had some differences. We also found that they had considered Mr A's representations and provided reasonable responses to the issues he had raised.