Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that a housing association staff member had given confidential information about him to a neighbour, and complained about this to the association. The manager who responded to his complaint was, however, one of the staff members who Mr C alleged had disclosed this information. Mr C felt that this was not appropriate. Also, as part of the investigation, the manager contacted the neighbour to ask if he had knowledge of the confidential information. Mr C felt that this gave the neighbour knowledge of who had made the complaint.

We were unable to uphold the complaint about disclosure of confidential information because we could find no evidence to support one version of events over another. However, the association acknowledged that they could have handled their investigation of Mr C's complaint better. They agreed that it should have been conducted by another member of staff and they should have contacted Mr C to seek his permission to contact the neighbour. As they also said they would apologise to Mr C for this and assure him that they had identified areas in their complaints handling procedure that they will take steps to improve, we did not need to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of Miss B that the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) was unreasonable. Mrs A had been admitted to hospital as an emergency with severe stomach pains and vomiting. She told doctors that she had been having irregular vaginal bleeding for the previous six months. Two days later, she had a major haemorrhage (escape of blood) after which she was scanned and was found to have a pelvic mass. Her care was passed to the gynaecological team and a biopsy (tissue sample) was taken from the inside of her womb before she was discharged from hospital. This showed that Mrs A had developed a high grade and aggressive form of cancer. She was referred to the nearest gynaecological cancer specialist centre and a provisional plan was made to admit her there for an operation. However, Mrs A deteriorated very quickly. She was admitted to hospital again and died there before she could receive the planned treatment.

As part of our investigation we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that Mrs A had a particularly aggressive form of cancer and there were no undue delays in treating her. The first planned treatment was less than one month after it was first suspected that she had cancer. The investigations carried out and the actions taken were entirely reasonable and appropriate.

Mrs C also complained about the hospital's communication with family members. We found that in general, the team's communication with Mrs A and her family was appropriate and in line with her wishes. The consultant had kept Mrs A informed of the progress of the investigations and treatment. When Mrs A was initially discharged from hospital, the diagnosis of cancer had not been confirmed. In addition, before she was readmitted, staff were proceeding with a plan for Mrs A to be treated, and her condition was, therefore, not terminal at that point. However, when Mrs A was readmitted to hospital, it was identified that her condition was in fact terminal. Miss B complained that before she knew this, a doctor asked her whether Mrs A should be resuscitated. Although we upheld this aspect of the complaint, we did not make any recommendations, as the consultant had apologised to Miss B and the board had discussed the matter with the junior doctor involved.

Summary

Mr and Miss C complained that a neighbour had constructed an entranceway that extended along the road verge to the entrance of a field that Mr and Miss C rent. They complained that this in effect increased the level of the verge, making it difficult to access the field with their vehicle and trailer. They also complained that the access road had resulted in a ditch being filled in and a field drain broken. Mr and Miss C felt that the council should not have allowed that part of the drive to be built and should take action to restore their access and fix the drains and ditch. They were also unhappy with the way the council dealt with their complaint.

The council's planning and roads teams reviewed the case and explained that the area in question was not part of the original planning consent. They explained that an area such as this would not require planning consent and, providing it did not cause flooding to the public road, would not be a concern for the roads department. As a result of this, the council explained that they could not take action against the neighbouring developer and that this was, essentially, a private dispute between neighbours. Mr and Miss C remained dissatisfied with this response.

We considered their concerns and reviewed the planning application details and roads legislation. We found no evidence to suggest that the council were in any way responsible for the changes to the verge. The site fell outwith the boundary area under which the planning permission was granted and, in itself, the area of tarmac concerned would not require planning permission. We also noted that the roads department would only take action where there was flooding to the public road. The council had inspected the site a number of times because of the complaint, and were satisfied that they could take no action to alter the access way. As the council were not responsible for the problems, and as they were unable to take enforcement action to alter the access to the field, we did not uphold these elements of the complaint.

However, we found that the council's initial handling of the complaint was very poor, as they failed to respond to correspondence and phone calls. In particular, the roads department failed to return numerous calls from Miss C. For this reason, and because the council allowed the correspondence to continue for almost two years, despite being clear that this was a private legal matter between neighbours, we upheld this element of the complaint. As, however, the council had already taken significant action to introduce a new computer system and complaints procedure we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that her son (Mr A) received when he was admitted to hospital as a voluntary psychiatric patient, after being taken there by the police. He was examined on admission and a care plan was completed. He was reviewed again the following morning by a doctor who had treated him when he had previously been admitted. The doctor gave him a pass to leave the hospital for two hours. Mr A did not return to the hospital and was found dead a number of days later.

We were able to investigate only limited elements of Mrs C's complaint, because the main aspects of it had already been investigated by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service when deciding whether to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry. We found that the care and treatment provided to Mr A during the short time he was in the hospital was reasonable and appropriate. Communication between the doctors who saw Mr A had also been satisfactory, and it was reasonable for a doctor to previously diagnose Mr A with schizophrenia.

That said, we found that no one from the hospital had phoned Mrs C back after she contacted them the morning after Mr A was admitted, asking to speak to the doctor who had previously treated him. Our investigation found that they were not required to call her back immediately, but should have done so at some stage, as it is good practice to involve family and carers when assessing and managing patients. We, therefore, found that communication with Mr A's family during his short admission was not reasonable. However, in view of the fact that a doctor had written to Mrs C to apologise for this, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C's daughter and her classmates participated in a swimming lesson given by a council swimming instructor at a local leisure facility managed by a leisure company. Her daughter was asked to repeat a task in front of the class and was left upset. Mrs C and her husband pursued an initial informal complaint, then took the complaint fully through the council's complaints procedures.

Our investigation upheld their complaint that the council failed to deal with the complaint properly at the informal stage, but we made no recommendation as the council had recognised the deficiencies in the initial complaints handling, and had put in place several measures to avoid this happening again. We found that the council's handling of the formal complaint had been thorough and transparent and relevant witnesses had been interviewed. Although the timescale in which they responded had exceeded stated targets, on balance we did not find that the council had failed to deal with those complaints in line with their policy.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his council tax account, in particular in relation to his application for empty property exemption. His complaints were about communication, updating addresses on the council's system and failure to take action to ensure errors made in his case were not repeated.

During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Mr C's initial enquiries about empty property exemption, but then delayed in taking action after he asked whether his property was exempt on the grounds that it was uninhabitable. The council had also accepted prior to our involvement that they should not have applied for a summary warrant for unpaid council tax, as the demand notice and reminder issued were incorrectly addressed. We found no evidence that emails or phone calls were not responded to, but did find that the council had incorrectly addressed correspondence. However, as we were satisfied that before we became involved they had already taken some action and proposed to take more, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C was in contact with the sheriff court about divorce proceedings. He complained to us that the court failed to provide him with an adequate service in relation to those proceedings. In particular, Mr C said his written communications were not passed to the sheriff for appropriate consideration prior to reaching a decision on the divorce proceedings. In addition, Mr C complained that the sheriff court failed to investigate his complaint appropriately.

Our consideration of Mr C's complaint was restricted to looking at the court's administrative handling of his communications. When our investigation reviewed the evidence, it was clear there were several administrative failings in handling correspondence. These included not passing Mr C's written submissions to the sheriff for consideration; not responding to requests for information; and not advising Mr C of the outcome of his divorce within an appropriate timescale. The sheriff court, and the Scottish Court Service (SCS), acknowledged and accepted the failings identified in Mr C's complaint, and because of this we upheld Mr C's complaint although we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations as they had already taken appropriate action.

We did not agree with Mr C that the sheriff court failed to investigative his complaint appropriately. We were satisfied that the issues he raised in his complaint were considered, investigated and responded to appropriately by both the court and the SCS.

Summary

A tree next to Mr C's home fell onto his property. Mr C complained that, before this happened, the council failed to take appropriate steps to maintain trees and the footpath. He said they also failed to adequately assess the situation after the incident and did not handle his complaint appropriately.

In considering Mr C's complaint, our role was to look at the council's tree management process and assess whether it was applied appropriately. The council are responsible for deciding what processes and procedures to put in place. Our investigation found that the council recognised the potential risk caused by dangerous trees and had appointed professional consultants to undertake a survey which started just over a year before the incident. The trees opposite Mr C's home were assessed but no works were identified as needing done. After the incident, the council confirmed they took professional advice from their tree officer before reducing the heights of the remaining trees. In light of this information, we were satisfied that they had an appropriate policy that they had applied, and we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we did find that the council had not properly registered his complaint in line with their complaints procedure and because of that, we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Summary

Ms C has multiple allergies. In September 2011, she was admitted to hospital with severe abdominal pain and vomiting. She was diagnosed with appendicitis and had an operation later that day. The surgeons found that the appendix had ruptured and she had peritonitis (inflammation of the tissue lining the abdomen). The consultant anaesthetist noted that she had at least one anaphylactic shock (a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction) the day after the operation. A week later, her condition deteriorated and she needed another operation.

Several days after being discharged, Ms C was re-admitted to hospital with abdominal pain. She was discharged the next day and staff arranged for her to be seen as an out-patient. In December 2011 she was admitted again with abdominal pain and vomiting. She was prescribed two forms of pain relief and an antibiotic and considers that she had an anaphylactic shock as a result. Ms C was discharged just over a week later to attend the pain and surgical clinic as an out-patient. She was admitted to the intensive care unit at the hospital at the end of February 2012 following an anaphylactic reaction to a barium solution (a liquid used when carrying out scans and x-rays) in the x-ray department. She told us that she also had further reactions to medical wipes.

Ms C complained that as a result of the board’s failures, she endured a second avoidable operation, and developed hernias, constant abdominal pain and abnormal bowel movements. She said she had a number of anaphylactic attacks, which were avoidable had staff taken reasonable steps to prevent them. She also complained that while she signed consent forms, she was not physically or mentally capable of giving consent to treatment, and raised concerns about the way the board handled her complaint and the delay in responding.

After taking independent advice from two of our medical advisers, a surgeon and a nurse, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints about her care and treatment. The advice we received and accepted was that the care and treatment she received in relation to the operations, including post-operative care, was reasonable. There was clear evidence that she consented to both operations and that staff communicated with her and her family, although the family felt that this did not meet their needs. In relation to the complaint about her care while an out-patient, particularly in relation to her allergies, on the whole we found that the care and treatment was reasonable. We found that the medical assessments and notes contained many references to Ms C's allergies, although we noted the board had acknowledged that radiology staff had not received information about these and had taken steps to address this.

We did, however, uphold her complaint about the complaints handling. We found that the board had carried out a thorough investigation of Ms C's complaint and responded to all the issues raised. However, they took eight months to do so. Ms C had agreed with the board that they would respond to all her complaints in one letter, although it was not clear when this happened. This approach had made the delay worse, however, as draft responses were prepared but not issued. We noted that each time Ms C had raised further complaints, the board had started a fresh investigation. We took the view that they could and should have managed this better.

Summary

Mrs C was studying for a law PhD, but failed to pass her first year review panel, which she needed to do before she could move into second year. She was granted a second panel, which she also failed. As a result of this, the university terminated her studies. Mrs C then complained that she was not offered an appropriate level of supervision. She felt her supervisor was not sufficiently experienced and did not have the required subject knowledge. She also complained that the university failed to appoint a second supervisor for some time.

The university upheld her complaint, in so far as they did not meet the requirements in appointing a second supervisor and that her supervisor did not have sufficient experience to act as a principal supervisor, in terms of their code of practice. They took the view, however, that effective supervision was still provided, which they evidenced by the considerable correspondence between both parties as well as the supervisor's academically challenging, but supportive, comments. The university apologised to Mrs C for the failures, and recommended that the law school explore the possibility of awarding a lesser degree. The school did so, but found that she did not meet the 50 percent pass mark required for such an award.

After reviewing the evidence we reached a similar decision to the university, in terms of the supervisor's experience and the failure to appoint a second supervisor. We cannot challenge matters of academic judgment so we could not comment on the quality of supervision, but we did note that the university considered that it was good, and that they had evidence to support this view. As we have no role in considering academic appeals either, we did not comment on the decision to terminate studies or whether the criteria for an award of a lesser degree were met. We did, however, note that the university had not recommended that the school award a degree (as Mrs C had claimed), they simply recommended that the possibility be explored.

As the university had already apologised to Mrs C, carried out a review of their supervisory processes and implemented changes, we made no recommendations. We did, however, arrange for them to refund fees she had paid in advance, which she had not previously reclaimed.