Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, applied to continue his higher education studies. The prison did not support Mr C's application and because of that, it was refused by the higher education access board. (This is the body responsible for considering applications from prisoners who want to access higher education studies.) In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said the prison failed to follow the relevant guidance when considering his application.

Our investigation found that the prison only had resources available to support eight applications from prisoners, but had received 21. Because of that, they put in place criteria to help decide which applications to support. In particular, they decided to give priority to prisoners who had not accessed education before, and to those nearing the completion of their studies. Neither of these criteria applied in Mr C's case and, because of that, the prison did not support his application. We found that the relevant guidance gives the prison discretion to make such decisions. We were satisfied that because they received more applications than they could resource, the prison could apply their own discretionary criteria to determine which applications to support. We found their sifting criteria to be fair and reasonable and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

In addition, Mr C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in complaints handling. Prisoners should be able to progress their complaint through the prison complaints procedure within 25 days - Mr C's complaint took just under 50 days. We agreed that this was an unreasonably long time and because of that, we upheld this element of his complaint. However, as we were satisfied that the delay in progressing his complaint did not interfere with his appeal against the decision, which is a separate process, we made no recommendation.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably refused a tenancy succession request she made when her grandfather died. The council said that the property was not Mrs C's principal or only residence at the time of her grandfather's death and, therefore, she was not legally entitled to succeed the tenancy. The evidence we found during our investigation supported this and we did not find any fault in the way that the council arrived at their decision.

We did find that the council took too long to deal with Mrs C's complaint, but as they had already changed their complaints procedure and were in the process of retraining staff, we did not make any recommendation about this.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us that the council took too long to acknowledge and respond to a complaint that she had made to them. She said that they had not properly explained how different parts of her complaint were going to be handled, and failed to respond to one of her complaints altogether.

Our investigation found that there was a delay in Mrs C's complaint being logged with the correct team and we upheld that complaint, but we did not find any unreasonable delays in responding to the issues Mrs C had raised. This was a complex and multi-faceted complaint, different elements of which needed different responses and actions. However, we found that the council had not properly and fully explained to Mrs C how some issues would be dealt with, and we upheld her complaint about this. We agreed that they had not responded to one complaint but decided that this had been reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her brother (Mr A) that his hip replacement operation was unreasonably delayed. Mr A's consultant put him on the waiting list for surgery. Mr A waited 13 weeks before receiving a phone call offering him an appointment for surgery in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board area. As Mr A had not discussed this option with his consultant, and as he had significant difficulty in mobilising, he said he would prefer to wait for a local appointment. Mr A and Mrs C then wrote to the board asking for all further communication about Mr A's care to be via Mrs C. Unfortunately, the board did not receive this before they called Mr A again and offered him an appointment in the Tayside health board area. Again, Mr A refused this and said he would rather wait for a local appointment.

Mrs C complained that Mr A's treatment was unreasonably delayed. We upheld her complaint, as there was no evidence that Mr A was told or had any discussion with his consultant about the possibility of having to travel for treatment. On this basis, we took the view that it was unreasonable to offer him treatment outside his local health board area. He was, therefore, not provided with any reasonable offers of treatment within the 18 week target time. Mr A's surgery was eventually carried out 26 weeks after he went on the waiting list, and we did not consider this to be reasonable.

Since Mr A's treatment, there have been several changes in local and national policy and practice, including the implementation of new legislation relating to waiting times. As these changes have addressed many of the shortcomings that led to this complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained that the board failed to involve her in the assessment of the care needs and the care plans for her father (Mr A). Mr A was in hospital, but the board considered that he would be better placed in a care home. Ms C was unhappy with this, as she considered that Mr A should not be discharged from hospital. We found that the board had tried to involve Ms C in the assessment of her father's care needs and care plans and that they acted reasonably in relation to this. We also found that that the assessment that had been completed was comprehensive. The board had arranged for an independent consultant to review Mr A's needs and we found that this was good practice and did not uphold this complaint.

We did, however, uphold Ms C's complaints about complaints handling and being given information. The independent consultant who reviewed the case said that Mr A could be discharged from hospital as long as suitable alternative care could be identified. The board then wrote to Ms C to say that they would start the process to find Mr A suitable residential care. We considered that when they wrote to Ms C about this they should have told her that she had a right of appeal, although we noted that they had informed her of this on an earlier occasion. We also found that the board had delayed in dealing with some of Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C and his partner sought in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment on the NHS. The board, however, said that because Mr C's partner's child from a previous relationship lives with them, they were not eligible for treatment. Mr C said that this decision was unreasonable because the board's policy on assisted conception discriminates against him and other men who have no biological children. He also said that the board did not deal with his complaint properly in that there were inaccuracies and delays in their responses and that they failed to address his complaint.

We explained to Mr C that it was not for us to determine whether the board's policy was discriminatory, but that we would consider whether their actions were reasonable. We found that their decision was reasonable in light of the framework for infertility services accepted by the Scottish Government and that, in taking legal advice and ensuring compliance with Scottish Government guidelines, they had acted in line with legislation and guidance.

We did find that the board delayed in responding to the complaint and that their responses should have provided a clearer explanation about the framework for infertility services from the outset. However, we made no recommendations about this, in light of the fact that the board reviewed their complaints management system earlier this year.

Summary

Mr C lives in a conservation area. He complained that the council failed to take into account the relevant planning policies and guidance when considering an application to add an additional storey to the property next to his. Two previous applications for the site had been refused and he was particularly concerned because, while some material changes had been made from the refused applications, the third application had not addressed some of the reasons for refusal of the first two applications.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints. We found that the application was handled correctly, and the relevant conservation policies had been considered. Although the council accepted that there was an error in the planning report in calculating the amount by which the development overshadowed Mr C's property, we found that this did not mean that the decision to grant planning consent was incorrect.

Mr C also raised concerns about the council's handling of his representations about the planning application and the handling of his personal details. We found that the council had provided a reasonable response to his representations about the application. However, while it was not for us to say whether there had been a breach of the Data Protection Act we found that the council had not provided a reasonable response to his representations about this. We upheld that complaint and drew the council's attention to our comments.

Summary

Mr C was a university student. He raised several issues about the results he received in a number of subjects. In particular, he was dissatisfied with the handling of his appeal against the results he obtained and complained that relevant factors were not taken into account. He was also unhappy with the university's handling of an outstanding debt that he maintained he did not owe, and said that the university had sent debt collectors to his property. He said that the university had blocked his access to university resources and was unhappy that he had not been provided with a copy of the minute of a meeting held as part of the appeals process.

We obtained all the relevant correspondence and guidance, made enquiries of the university and checked their policy and procedures on student appeals and complaints. We did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints. During our investigation we established that there was no evidence to suggest that the issues raised by Mr C had not been properly taken into account during the appeals process. We also found no evidence that the university had sent debt collectors to his property or that they had blocked his access to resources as a result of an outstanding debt. We did find that, while the university had provided a written record of the outcome of the appeal, they had failed to send a copy of the minute of a meeting held as part of the appeal due to an oversight, and we upheld this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council inappropriately issued a completion certificate in 1992 for building works carried out at a property he bought some years later. Mr C said the council should not have issued a completion certificate because the work 'as built' differed in several key aspects from the plans which had originally been warranted by the council. Mr C also complained that the council had delayed unreasonably in providing information he had requested.

We found that the building control officer was aware of changes (to the proposed layout and the door and window configuration) when the completion certificate was issued. We concluded that it was for the officer to decide whether the changes meant that a reapplication for warrant was necessary or if an amended drawing or annotation of the existing drawing would be sufficient. There was no evidence that the officer's professional judgement had been flawed, and we did not uphold this complaint. We upheld the complaint about information, as the council had already accepted that there were administrative errors in the handling of Mr C’s request for archived drawings, which had caused delay.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the quality of the food she received while in hospital. The board said that as she had not reported it to them when she was a patient they were unable to look into her concerns. They said that they had very few complaints about food standards and reported very good results from patient satisfaction surveys.

Mrs C then complained to us about poor food quality and that there was a lack of investigation into her complaint. It is not our role to monitor food quality in hospitals. However, we looked to see whether the food quality was effectively monitored and reviewed by the board. We also looked at the food quality results from patient surveys. In both cases we found that the board achieved high patient satisfaction results. We also noted a number of actions the board was taking in response to issues that had been identified. As the board appeared to achieve good quality food standards, and responded to problems when they arose, we did not uphold this complaint.

We did, however, uphold the complaint about the lack of investigation into Mrs C's concerns, but we did not make recommendations. We felt that the board could have examined whether there were any specific reasons why food quality might have been affected during the period of Mrs C's stay, and that they had missed the opportunity to tell her about the active steps they were taking to improve food quality.