Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C had complained over a number of years to the council about problems of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He was dissatisfied with the council's handling of his complaints about noise nuisance, and said that they had been hesitant to take action within the powers at their disposal. He also complained that the council had withdrawn their service from him on this, and as a result he had suffered three weeks of anti-social behaviour with no service. He also complained of delay in the handling of his complaint.

We found that the council had stopped the call-out service by officers, who had visited in response to complaints from Mr C of noise nuisance, because there had been counter-complaints about Mr C's behaviour. However, we found no evidence that the council had not continued to deal with his complaint, including making arrangements for sound monitoring equipment to be installed in his home. We found nothing wrong with the thoroughness of the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint. The council recognised there was delay in replying to Mr C, so we upheld his complaint about this, but as they had already apologised, which we considered satisfactory, we did not make a recommendation.

Summary

Ms C's mother (Mrs A) had been admitted to Stirling Community Hospital for palliative care (care provided solely to prevent or relieve suffering). Ms C complained that one day her mother was very distressed, saying she had been forced to get out of bed and stand, despite her begging them not to make her do so, as she had not been out of bed for a long time. Ms C said her mother, therefore, fell on the floor and had to be moved back into bed by a hoist. The board told Ms C that two staff members were moving Mrs A from her bed to a chair, but as she sank down towards the floor, they helped her to the floor, and from there they transferred her back to bed with a hoist. Ms C said her mother would never have agreed to stand or sit, feeling so ill that she simply wanted to lie down all the time.

We considered the medical records, which showed that staff wanted to assess Mrs A's mobility needs to see whether it might be possible to meet her wish to return home. The records also said that Mrs A had sat up on occasion. We took independent advice from our nursing adviser, who considered that, although we could not know whether Mrs A had wanted to be moved on the day in question, it was appropriate that staff should try to move her and also, when she moved towards the floor, that they should assist her in doing so, to prevent any injury. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Ms C also complained about the communication with the family during the admission. The records showed no discussion about necessary end of life planning issues after a certain date - for example, discussions about where Mrs A might want to die. Our adviser considered such discussions were important. In the absence of documentation to show that such discussions took place, we upheld the complaint. The board themselves had already acknowledged that communication could have been better and had taken action to help prevent a recurrence. Our adviser considered that such action was appropriate, and, therefore, we decided against making any recommendation for further action.

Summary

Mr C reported that the council stopped his refuse collection. He said that he was later informed that a neighbour had denied the council refuse vehicles access to the private road running past his home. The council then made new arrangements for refuse collection via a concrete plinth at the end of the private road. Mr C was unhappy that his service had been changed and he told us that he had not been told the reason for the change or given any kind of notice. Mr C was also unhappy as it had taken the council approximately six weeks to organise a new collection location. In addition Mr C felt that the council had not communicated effectively with him and in particular had not adhered to his request to only be contacted in writing.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed organising a new collection point, but we did not make any recommendations as the council had already offered an apology within their final response.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had not informed him of a change of service prior to it taking place. This was because the council provided evidence that they had met with Mr C at his home prior to the change to tell him that his refuse collection would be disrupted. Soon after they told Mr C that the reason for this was that a neighbour had denied access to the private road. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's communication with him. Although there was matters of communication that could have been managed more effectively by the council, they did keep Mr C informed about the refuse situation.

Finally, we found that Mr C's request for the identity of the neighbour who had denied access to the private road was dealt with as a Freedom of Information issue and the council communicated effectively about the progress of this request. We explained to Mr C that he should direct any dissatisfaction he had with the outcome of that request to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council advisory service did not have permission to work with his children. Mr C thought that the service had a duty to validate information provided by potential service users before offering a support service. Mr C told us that the council failed to reply to two letters he wrote to them.

We found no evidence that the service had a duty to work in the way that Mr C would have preferred. Mr C did not dispute that his former partner had given consent and we found that this consent was sufficient to allow the council to provide a service to the children.

The council acknowledged that they had not answered two letters sent directly to the service as they should have done. They told us that steps had been taken to ensure that this would not happen again and had apologised to Mr C.

When it was originally published in February 2015, this case was wrongly categorised as 'not upheld'.  The correct category is 'some upheld'.

Summary

Mr C complained about the housing association's handling of his representations about an incident that led to action being taken against him. He complained that they had failed to take into account his version of what had happened. Mr C also complained that they did not consider his complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure.

During our investigation we found that the association had obtained corroboration of the incident from an independent source. They had spoken to Mr C to obtain his account of what had happened and to seek information from him before deciding to take action against him. As they had acted appropriately, we did not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint. We did, however, uphold his complaint about their complaints handling. While we were satisfied that the association dealt with the majority of his complaints within the complaints procedure, we found that on two occasions they failed to meet the timescales set out in their procedure. We did not make any recommendations, as the association had already apologised to Mr C for this.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with a phone consultation she had with an out-of-hours GP. Specifically, Mrs C complained that the GP failed to visit her at home or arrange a visit by another GP, and that the GP terminated the phone consultation and gave an inaccurate account of the phone consultation. In addition, Mrs C complained about the board's handling of her complaint.

We looked at Mrs C's medical records, and took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We concluded that the service Mrs C received was below a standard that could have been reasonably expected. We found that the GP should have agreed an outcome of the consultation with Mrs C and communicated this to her; in particular, that Mrs C should have been referred for a home visit as she felt unable to travel to the local hospital. In terms of how the board dealt with Mrs C's complaint, we found that their initial responses were in line with their process, and that it was reasonable of them to offer an opportunity to meet with staff to discuss the complaint. However, a delay in concluding the complaint was unreasonable, and it was only after Mrs C had prompted the board that a promised update was provided. We upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. However, given the actions already taken by the board to resolve these matters, we did not make any recommendations.

In relation to Mrs C's complaints about what happened during the phone consultation, we found that there was no audio recording of the call. Where there are differing accounts of what was said or what happened in a particular situation, it can be difficult to prove what actually happened. In such cases, we primarily base our findings on written records. As there was no audio recording in this case, there was no way to determine what was said, or how the call was ended. Even then, it would have been difficult to ascertain exactly what caused the call to end. We could not resolve these aspects of Mrs C's complaint given the differing accounts. However, that did not mean we believed one account over another. Given there was insufficient evidence to allow us to reach a finding, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr A was admitted to the Royal Northern Infirmary for rehabilitation. He was suffering from lung cancer as well as recuperating from a stroke and a broken arm. He had a stoma bag (a surgically made pouch on the outside of the body) as a result of an earlier ileostomy (a surgical procedure on the small intestine). It was hoped that he would be able to recover some of his mobility whilst in hospital, but Mr A became unwell after a few days and was transferred to another hospital, where he later died as a result of a blocked bowel. His daughter (Ms C) complained to us about the care and treatment her father received at the Royal Northern Infirmary towards the end of his life.

We took independent advice on Mr A's care from our nursing adviser. We found that as a result of Ms C's complaint, a significant event review was carried out which included several recommendations and actions to be taken. While we found that there were issues about the lack of end of life care and poor communication with Ms C and the rest of the family, we found that the pain assessment, nursing and stoma care Mr A received was reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint about her father's care and treatment.

Ms C also complained that the board failed to deal with her complaint according to their policies and procedures. As we found that there were considerable delays in responding, we upheld this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the nursing care and treatment provided to his late wife (Mrs C) and also complained that when her condition deteriorated she was not transferred to the Intensive Treatment Unit (ITU). Mrs C had a previous medical history which included Type II diabetes, heart disease, and kidney problems and she had been progressively unwell several months before she was admitted to Forth Valley Royal Hospital. At that time she was complaining of a six-week history of breathlessness, an unproductive cough, reduced exercise tolerance, and increasing leg oedema (swelling due to fluid retention). Mrs C was treated with drugs to fight infection and to reduce fluid retention but her condition failed to respond and she died around four weeks after being admitted.

We took independent medical advice from one of the Ombudsman's nursing advisers and a consultant who specialises in care of the elderly. We found that although the nursing treatment was reasonable, appropriate and timely, there were some failings in the nursing care provided including failure to appropriately supervise Mrs C when she was self-administering her insulin (a drug used to treat diabetes); to deal appropriately with urine samples; and to communicate the seriousness of Mrs C's condition to Mr C and members of the family. These failings had already been acknowledged and apologised for by the board in their responses to Mr C's complaint to them, and an action plan had been implemented to address the issues, including ongoing staff education. Therefore, although on balance we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, we did not make any recommendations as we considered that appropriate action had already been taken by the board.

On the medical treatment provided to Mrs C, our consultant adviser said that Mrs C received appropriate assessments, investigations, specialist reviews and modifications of treatment where required. On the specific issue of transfer to the ITU, we found that when Mrs C's condition deteriorated, she had been appropriately reviewed and her treatment was modified accordingly. She was then reviewed shortly after by an ITU consultant. By the time of the ITU review, Mrs C's condition had improved and then remained clinically stable, although she was still very unwell, for the next few days. The decision was taken that admission to the ITU would be unlikely to achieve any further improvement in Mrs C's condition and we considered that this was a reasonable decision, so we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a tenant of the association, complained to us about four issues. Firstly, she complained that the property she rented from the association was not in a tenantable condition. However, the association demonstrated that inspections took place before Ms C moved into the property which indicated that no work was required, and that it was in excellent condition and decorative order. We also found evidence that, by signing her tenancy agreement, Ms C had agreed that the property was in a good and tenantable condition. We were satisfied that the association let the property in a tenantable condition and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C was also unhappy that information on service charges was not reasonably clear. The association accepted that they should have provided Ms C with a Service Charge Schedule which would set out the charges that tenants should expect. Although we upheld this complaint we were happy with the association's attempts to resolve this matter prior to our involvement, so we did not make any recommendations.

We told Ms C that we could not uphold her complaint about the association breaching confidentiality because this was a matter for the Information Commissioner's office, who we signposted her to. We did, however, criticise the association because we found that their staff opened and discussed correspondence in an area that was open to members of the public.

Ms C's final complaint related to an allegation that a housing and maintenance officer was unprofessional towards her. The association disputed this and said that their staff member was professional in her dealings with Ms C. As we could not establish the facts beyond what was said in the two differing accounts of what happened, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C made a number of complaints about Scottish Water. Firstly, she complained that they were incorrectly treating a pipe in her garden as a combined sewer pipe (in which domestic sewage is mixed with rainwater from roofs and paved surfaces, and transported to be treated). She also complained that they had refused to remove the pipe and her neighbour's connection to it, despite having no record of when and whether the connection had been approved. We obtained independent advice on the complaints from one of our water advisers, who said that the evidence indicated that it was reasonable for Scottish Water to say that the relevant pipe was a public combined sewer. In view of this, they were entitled to decide that they would not remove the pipe or the neighbour's connection to it.

Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water allowed untreated sewage and water drainage from another neighbour's property to accumulate in an emergency drainage chamber on her land. She provided photographs showing water and sewage in the manhole chamber. Our water adviser said that Scottish Water had a duty to maintain this and to ensure that any blockages were cleared. We found that, when Mrs C raised this with Scottish Water, they had confirmed this to be their responsibility, and fixed the problem. She also told us that they had caused flooding in her garden by allowing surface water from another property to enter a soakaway (a pit into which water flows and drains away). However, we found that they had no control over this. We did not uphold either of these complaints.

Mrs C also complained that Scottish Water carried out work on her land whilst she was on holiday, without giving the required notice. We found that Scottish Water had agreed the work with her, and had given her notice that contractors had been asked to carry it out. There was no evidence that the contractors carried out additional work that had not been agreed.

Finally, Mrs C complained that Scottish Water did not respond to her complaint promptly, and we found that they had delayed in concluding their investigation, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint. However, as they had already apologised to Mrs C for this we did not make any recommendations.