Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

When Ms C complained to the council about issues to do with her council tax, they told her they would respond within five working days. They in fact replied after about three working weeks and when Ms C complained about this, they said that when they had reviewed her complaint they considered it was too complex for a response at the first stage of their complaints procedure, which has a five-day turnaround. They had, therefore, responded to it at stage two, within the twenty working day timescale for that stage. They accepted that they should have told her about this, and apologised. Ms C submitted further complaints to the council and was dissatisfied with the responses, so brought the matter to us.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that the council had not responded within five working days, but made no recommendations as we took the view that they acted appropriately after Ms C complained about this. We found that their responses to her other complaints were reasonable.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association had not dealt properly with his complaint about parking problems at a site where he rented a garage. He said that 'no parking' signs were removed while refurbishment work was being carried out close by, but that they were not reinstated in the same places as before. Mr C said that vehicles were now parking in a way that prevented him from accessing his garage. He also told us that the association had not responded to his correspondence and complaints about the matter.

We found that the association had the right to decide where the signs should be, and that they had taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem including putting up signs and placing road markings, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the parking. They had, however, acknowledged that they had not dealt appropriately with Mr C's correspondence and complaints. They had apologised to him and explained what they had done to ensure that in future they would deal with complaints in line with their policies and procedures. We upheld his complaint about the association's complaints handling but, because of the action they had already taken, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the late supply of medication by the health centre based within the prison. He was also unhappy with the way in which his complaint was handled, saying that he had difficulties obtaining a complaints form and that health centre staff had opened his mail.

We did not uphold the complaint about the supply of medication. The board explained that the external pharmacy had delayed in providing the medication to the health centre. Our investigation also found that there was a national shortage of this medication around that time, which was outwith the board's control. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers who took the view that, although Mr C might possibly have experienced some pain, the delay would not have had a negative impact on his medical condition. We also took into account a recent recommendation we made to the board about previous delays in the supply of Mr C's medication.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the board failed to provide him with a complaints form in a timely manner. However, we did not make any specific recommendations, as we recently recommended that the board take relevant action on another similar complaint. The board acknowledged that Mr C's mail should not have been opened, and we were satisfied with the action they took to ensure it did not happen again.

Summary

Miss C's partner (Mr A) was admitted to Wishaw General Hospital with increasing shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing. Medical staff diagnosed that his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a disease of the lungs in which the airways become narrowed) had got worse and that a toe on which he had recently had surgery might be infected. The next day, Mr A's condition deteriorated abruptly. He had central chest pain and was very wheezy. As there was no intensive care bed available in the hospital, he was transferred to the intensive care unit of another hospital, where he died two days later.

Miss C complained that the board provided Mr A with inadequate care and treatment. We took independent advice on her complaint from one of our medical advisers. The adviser noted that when Mr A was admitted, it was recorded that he had previously been admitted to the high dependency unit in the hospital with breathlessness. Miss C considered Mr A should also have been admitted to the high dependency unit on this occasion. However, our adviser said that it was reasonable not to admit him there, as his condition had been stable at that time. Staff took Mr A's existing health problems into account and the care and treatment provided to him was reasonable and appropriate. A doctor acted correctly in reducing the amount of oxygen delivered when there were signs of a deterioration in Mr A's respiratory function. It was also appropriate for a consultant anaesthetist to intubate and ventilate (pass a tube into the airway and place on a mechanical ventilator to assist with breathing) Mr A in response to his vomiting and low oxygen saturation levels.

Miss C also complained that staff had failed to communicate with Mr A's family adequately. She said that they had not contacted her to let her know that Mr A's condition had deteriorated. However, we found that his deterioration coincided with Miss C's arrival at the hospital to visit him and there had not been time for staff to contact her before this. We did not consider that there were any major failings in the initial period of communication with the family. However, communication with them was not satisfactory when Mr A was stabilised and awaiting transfer to the other hospital's intensive care unit. We also found that the board had delayed in responding to Miss C's complaint. Although we upheld these complaints, we made no recommendations as we were satisfied that the board had apologised and had confirmed that lessons had been learned.

Summary

Ms C had a single bedroom tenancy. Her adult son had come to live with her in February 2013, while he was awaiting housing. Ms C wanted to move elsewhere, but did not want to immediately give up the tenancy, as she was taking up her new housing arrangement on a trial basis. She emailed the housing association in late April to ask if she could sublet to her son. A housing officer called her the same day and said that with her son resident she was creating an overcrowded situation, and that she would not be given permission to sublet. The housing officer followed this up by sending her son forms to update his housing application, and writing to Ms C saying that her son should leave within two weeks and make contact with the local council’s homelessness officer. Ms C then made a written request for permission to sublet the tenancy to her son and complained about the housing officer’s actions. This resulted in the association granting Ms C permission to sublet for a temporary period of four months, and apologising.

Ms C sublet the house to her son and moved away. In August 2013 she told the association that she wished to terminate her tenancy and make her move permanent. She asked whether the tenancy could be assigned to her son. For this to be allowed, however, the association needed to establish that her son had lived there for six months. He had been asked for evidence, but had no documentary proof. Ms C supplied evidence that when her son came to stay with her she had told the council that she was no longer eligible for single person’s council tax discount, but the housing officer said that this did not in itself confirm her son’s residence. Ms C complained again. The chief executive responded to her complaint, and also invited her to withdraw her request to terminate the tenancy, so that she could ask for it to be assigned to her son.

Ms C made three complaints to us about this. We did not uphold her complaints that the association had failed to follow the correct processes and procedures when she first told them that her son was living with her or that they had unreasonably failed to deal with her enquiries, as we found no evidence that the association had done anything wrong in respect of these. We did uphold the complaint that she was initially told that she could not sublet to her son, but as the association had already apologised for that and had given permission for the sublet, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council’s revision of his council tax liability on his former shared property and was unhappy that they were pursuing him for this. He said he had not received an adequate explanation of the amount owed or an adequate response to his complaints.

Mr C initially visited the council's office for an explanation and, when he did not receive a satisfactory response, he wrote to the council twice. He did not receive a response to either letter and so he submitted a complaint. In responding to the complaint, the council apologised to Mr C for not responding to his letters and for the fact he was not able to obtain an explanation when he visited their office. They said they would raise this with the office manager.

The council went on to provide Mr C with what we considered to be a clear explanation of the amount owed. They provided a detailed breakdown of his account and explained why they were obliged to pursue both Mr C and his former flatmate for the debt. As they appeared to have managed Mr C's account in line with the relevant rules and procedures, and as we saw no evidence that he had been charged an incorrect level of council tax, we did not uphold this element of his complaint.

As the council had not provided an explanation when Mr C first contacted them, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, as they had already acknowledged their failings, apologised to Mr C, and taken steps to try to prevent a repeat occurrence, as well as offering a clear explanation of the outstanding balance, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her complaints about noise from a nearby factory, in particular their handling of her concerns about night-time noise. Mrs C was also concerned about how they dealt with her complaint about their handling of the matter.

During our investigation we received evidence of the council's investigations in response to the complaints of noise nuisance, including carrying out noise measurements inside Mrs C's property. The council explained that, while they recognised that the noise disturbed Mrs C, they were unable to take any formal action as they were unable to establish that a statutory noise nuisance existed. The council had worked with the owner of the factory to carry out works on a voluntary basis but unfortunately these had not helped.

On balance, we upheld the complaint about the council's complaints handling, as we found that they failed to handle Mrs C's initial concerns in line with their complaints procedure. We noted, however, that their later handling of the complaint was in line with their procedure, and we were satisfied that they responded reasonably to the issues she raised, so we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations about this.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not follow the correct procedure when making their decision on a school planning application, which included a biomass boiler. They had concerns about the health implications, and said that the council did not appropriately take account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations. They also complained about the handling of their complaint.

There were environmental issues relating to this planning application, and the council explained that assessment of the application involved two key material considerations – the impact on the amenity of the area and local residents, in particular the visual impact, and the extent to which the facility complied with the guidance and regulations governing the operation and function of biomass boilers and associated emissions. The council also took into account the impact on residential amenity by reason of noise. The council explained that appropriate conditions were included on the planning permission and separate legislation is available to monitor emissions and noise.

In investigating this complaint we took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He was satisfied that there were no procedural irregularities, with the exception of an oversight over the stack height. He pointed out, however, that a further assessment makes it clear the proposal falls well within the tolerances for control of emissions from such a stack. He confirmed that there are no grounds under planning policy and procedure for rejecting the biomass plant and stack application on health grounds. Health protection is not a material planning consideration unless there is specific planning guidance on the matter, especially where there are other regulatory frameworks in place to deal with the health impacts. He also noted that the council have policies for the use of biomass as a heating source for schools and that it is clear that the health consequences are not something they would take lightly.

We did not uphold the complaint about the planning decision as we were satisfied that the council took account of relevant guidance and material planning considerations in making their decision, and that they considered the concerns raised. We saw no evidence of anything wrong in the process, and we were satisfied they provided a detailed response to the complaint. However, while we noted that the council were moving between complaint processes at the time, we upheld the complaint about complaints handling as there were delays, a lack of information about what was happening, and a failure to signpost Mr and Mrs C to the next stage. As the council had already recognised these failings, apologised and taken steps to address them, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C and her sister complained to the council about the care of their late mother (Mrs A). They said that when their mother was discharged from hospital a social worker had unreasonably placed her in a locked dementia ward rather than in a unit for frail elderly people. Their distress was compounded when Mrs A was assaulted by other residents. Mrs C then complained to us about the way the council had handled their complaint, as she said that information about the assaults her mother had been subjected to had been withheld from a committee.

We did not uphold the complaint about information, as our investigation found that the committee had access to all the complaints papers including evidence of the assaults that the council accepted that Mrs A had suffered. However, we did find that there had been unreasonable delay in the handling of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

A local councillor (Mr C) complained on behalf of two of his constituents that works on a neighbouring property had begun without the relevant permit being issued. He was also unhappy with the council's responses to the complaints he made on his constituents' behalf.

Our investigation found that the council officer involved had verbally advised the contractor that the permit would be issued, and was then unexpectedly absent from work when the application was received. We did not uphold the complaint about this, as we decided that in the circumstances it was reasonable for the council to allow the work to progress before the permit was issued. We did uphold the complaint about the council's complaints handling because of the delay in providing Mr C with a response. As the council had taken action as a result of the complaint, by apologising and putting extra resource in place to ensure this did not happen again, we did not make any recommendations.