Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr and Mrs A's solicitor complained to the council about an application for planning consent to build a house, which was made by the owner of land adjoining their property.

The couple claimed that the council's registration of the planning application was not valid on several grounds, including: the exact locality of the site was not shown; the plan submitted did not show the correct access to their property and the size of the plot was wrong; no information was provided about intended water and drainage arrangements; the applicant had not described access points to the site from the road as required by regulations, and Mr and Mrs A had not been notified of the application as they should have been. Mr and Mrs A were also dissatisfied with the council's handling of their complaint and brought the matter to us.

We did not uphold the complaint about the application as, on the basis of what must be provided in law, the council's guidance and the circumstances known at the time, we found no reason to find its validation unacceptable. We found that the council obtained all necessary information after checking the planning application and completed the process satisfactorily. We also found that responsibility for the accuracy of the ownership certificate, which is a prerequisite for validation, is a matter for the applicant in the first instance and the council is entitled to accept it at face value, and that neighbour notification happens after validation, not before.

We found that two letters from the solicitor were not acknowledged by the council when they should have been. When the council did reply they acknowledged and apologised for failing to respond to the enquiries and then dealt with the main points that had been raised. We, therefore, upheld the complaint about complaints handling, but did not need to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of his neighbour's planning application for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a large fence. In particular, Mr C said that the council had used incorrect criteria when assessing the application and had failed to undertake a road safety audit. He was also unhappy about the council's handling of his correspondence.

Our investigation found no evidence of procedural fault in the way in which they processed the application. We were satisfied that the council used current guidelines in assessing the application and in deciding that in this case a road safety audit was not required. We did find fault in the way in which the council handled Mr C's representations, but noted that they had apologised to him for this before our involvement, and we made no recommendation.

Summary

Mr C owns one-third of a house occupied by his mother (Mrs B). The association notified him that they had awarded his mother a grant for adaptations to the house and they were assisting her with the work. They asked for his consent to a number of conditions attached to the work. Mr C replied with a number of questions about the work, and said he was withholding his consent until they were answered.

On the advice of the local council, the association proceeded with the work with only the consent of the other two owners. Mr C considered that the association should not have continued with the work without his consent and should have communicated with him better. He also thought that the association misrepresented his position to the council.

Our investigation found that although it was the council's decision to proceed with the work, the association had failed to properly communicate with Mr C. They had also failed to properly progress his initial complaint. However, as the association had already addressed these matters in the complaint correspondence, we made no recommendations about this. We did not find that they had misrepresented his position, particularly as we noted that the council also had access to a note from Mr C explaining his views.

Summary
Ms C complained that she had to wait an unreasonably long time for appointments for problems with her hip, and that after that she had to wait an unreasonably long time for surgery. She complained that this breached the government's 'referral to treatment' target. She also complained that the board failed to provide a response to her complaints.

After taking advice from our medical adviser, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints about waiting time. We found that, overall, her clinical treatment was reasonable. She was first seen by an orthopaedic consultant after a referral from her GP, and was then referred to and seen by a physiotherapist, all within the governmental target. We accepted the board's position that this was when Ms C's treatment started. We found that the decision to refer Ms C for physiotherapy was appropriate, and that she needed to go through this programme before surgery could be considered. Therefore, we did not consider that her wait for surgery was unreasonable. When it was established that physiotherapy had not been successful, the orthopaedic consultant referred Ms C for a scan. The results of the scan indicated that hip surgery was appropriate. At that time, the board had withdrawn funding for this procedure, so Ms C was referred to another board area. She subsequently underwent surgery privately.

Although we acknowledged Ms C's frustration, both about waiting time and the withdrawal of funding, we found that her treatment was appropriate. We did find there was an unreasonable delay in Ms C receiving a full response to her complaint, and were critical of the board about this.

Summary
Ms C was pregnant. She went to hospital, where it was found that her waters had broken and she was booked in to be admitted the next morning for an induced labour. Ms C complained to us that on the day she was admitted she did not receive antibiotics until the evening. This was contrary to the board's own policy that if an expectant mother's waters had broken she should receive antibiotics immediately on admittance to hospital to reduce the risk of infection. We upheld Ms C's complaint that there had been a delay in administering antibiotics in her case. However we did not make any recommendations as we noted the board had taken steps to address this.

Ms C underwent a long labour, and had a epidural (an anaesthetic administered by a fine tube inserted into the spine, the effects of which come on gradually and continuously) which she told us became displaced and leaked. As Ms C's labour was not progressing, staff decided that she should go into theatre for either a forceps delivery or caesarean section. To prepare her for this, she was given a spinal block (a single shot spinal injection) for more rapid and profound analgesia. The anaesthetist had difficulty placing the block, and after several attempts called a consultant anaesthetist for assistance. The consultant also had difficulty placing the block although they eventually managed to do so. Having taken advice from one of our medical advisers who is a consultant anaesthetist, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint that an unreasonable number of attempts were made to insert the block. We found that the anaesthetist had acted correctly and called the consultant within a reasonable amount of time. We also found that given that both the anaesthetist and the consultant had had difficulties in placing the block, there were no training issues identified.

The block then worked very quickly, and Ms C developed numbness in her arms and chest and had breathing difficulties. After her daughter was born, Ms C had to be placed under general anaesthetic and on a ventilator until she was able to breathe unassisted again. Although we recognised how traumatic and frightening this had been for Ms C, we did not uphold her complaint about this, as we found that it was a rare but recognised complication of a spinal block. We also found that medical staff had acted appropriately, and had met Ms C later and tried to explain to her what had happened. As general medical understanding about this complication is limited, we found that they had explained it to the best of their abilities.

Finally, Ms C complained the board had not responded to her complaints adequately, especially her concerns about the future. We did not uphold this complaint. We found that the board had made efforts to discuss Ms C's continuing concerns about future pregnancies or procedures. We considered that their position that further tests would not add anything to their knowledge of Ms C was reasonable.

Summary
Mr C's daughter was taking music lessons at school. When she started, the lessons were free but, unknown to Mr C, the council had already decided that they would begin to charge for them at the start of the next school year.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to tell him that in future there would be a charge, which he could not afford, and said that he was out of pocket as he had bought his daughter an instrument and sheet music. He said that he would not have done that if he had known that the council had already decided to start charging.

He also complained that the council failed to consider the issue of inclusive education in their impact assessment on a proposed efficiency savings policy (which included the introduction of these charges).

Our investigation found that the council did not tell parents about the charges until finalising the administrative and income collection processes for them, some four months after taking the decision. We upheld Mr C's complaint as we found it unreasonable that the council did not tell parents who applied for free music tuition in the preceding months that a charge would apply from the start of the new school year. We considered whether we should recommend that they recompense Mr C for the cost of the instrument and music, but decided that they should not, as other alternatives were available, and the decision to buy the items was clearly his choice.

On inclusive education, we considered that the council's impact assessment took account of equalities legislation and community relations. The council explained that there is normally a charge for music tuition for pupils who are not studying for Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) music qualifications. Mr C's daughter was not studying for such a qualification. Although, therefore, Mr C felt that his daughter was excluded on ability to pay, there was in fact no requirement for the council to provide free tuition outwith the SQA qualification.

Summary
Mr C complained about Scottish Natural Heritage's (SNH) handling of an application for funding and a license to disturb a protected species on moorland. SNH were a partner in the moorland development project, which aimed to increase the numbers of red grouse on the moor, allowing grouse shooting whilst conserving the local hen harrier population. Hen harriers are a protected species and, as such, the moor is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA).

Mr C complained that SNH inappropriately granted funding and licenses to the project without ensuring that a Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA) was carried out. He considered that this would result in disturbance to the hen harriers, contrary to the European Union Habitats Directive, which states that significant disturbance to protected species must be avoided.

We accepted SNH's position that an HRA was not required for the project as a whole, as the project had no statutory basis. However, certain activities proposed as part of the project required a license to disturb the protected hen harriers. As such, an Appropriate Assessment (formal assessment of the impacts of a plan or project in a protected or conservation area) was required under the HRA process before the license could be approved.

SNH told us that consideration was given to the impact that the project would have on the hen harriers before the license was issued. However, they failed to document this in a formal Appropriate Assessment. This was completed after Mr C complained.

Although we were satisfied that the decision to issue the license was not unreasonable or contrary to regulations or legislation, we did not consider it enough just to consider the potential impact on a protected species. Given SNH's position as a partner in the project, we took the view that they should have been able to demonstrate that the potential impact was properly considered through completion of the Appropriate Assessment.

With regard to the potential disturbance to the local hen harrier population, we did not find that the Habitats Regulations prohibited activities that may disturb. Rather, consent can be given if it can be shown that the integrity of the protected site will be maintained following Appropriate Assessment and consideration of the impact on the site. One of the project's aims was to establish whether certain activities would have a detrimental impact on the hen harrier population. As such, the extent of any impact could not be known until the experiment was carried out. Based on the evidence we saw, we were satisfied that SNH had a process of monitoring in place to record the impact on the hen harriers. We also found that they reached their conclusion that the integrity of the protected site would be maintained after assessing appropriate factors and with reference to existing scientific research.

Summary
Mrs C purchased a housing plot in a rural location from a landowner in 1996 and the contract of sale included a right of pre-emption to the landowner should she decide to sell, and obligations regarding contributing to works on an access track and for water supplied by the landowner to the site. Mrs C's plans to build did not materialise and in 2008 she sought to sell. When the landowner became aware of this, he offered to make a quick decision on exercising his right of pre-emption in return for a cheque for a particular sum in relation to works to the track. Delay would lead to a recalculation of the amount owed. After various solicitors letters, the amount sought by the landowner tripled. The landowner also threatened to open a quarry exercising permitted development rights. Mrs C refused to pay, the landowner served an inhibition on sale, and the matter went to court. The decision in 2010 was on balance in Mrs C's favour.

When Mrs C first approached the council in 2008, she was given advice by trading standards on the water charges. When she contacted them again when matters were before the courts, she was informed that she should await the outcome of those proceedings. After contacting the council in the latter part of 2010, trading standards arranged for various witness statements to be taken and then, on seeking the advice of the council's legal section they decided they could take no action as the matter was too old.

Mrs C made four allegations against the council, three relating to trading standards and one relating to planning. At the final stage of the council's consideration of the matter they accepted that the service they provided in relation to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 was flawed and two of Mrs C's complaints were upheld. A third complaint relating to the Enterprise Act 2002 was not upheld. While the council's planning service correctly informed Mrs C that they would not take action on a threat, as opposed to a breach of development control, they had informed Mrs C that they could write to the landowner concerned reminding him of the Agricultural Prior Notification procedures but then decided against that course of action but did not inform Mrs C. On balance, therefore, we also upheld that complaint.
 

Summary
Mrs C's infant son (Master A) had a history of throat problems, reflux and allergies. Mrs C was concerned that he was having problems while sleeping, and she was not happy with the investigations and treatment provided by the board. The specific complaints we investigated were that there was an avoidable delay in fully investigating and diagnosing Master A's condition, and there was an error in a letter from the board regarding the date when Master A's 'failure to thrive' was diagnosed. Mrs C was also unhappy that the board had not explained to her why a flexiscope examination (a specialist examination of the throat using a camera device) was not carried out on Master A more recently.

We found from looking at the evidence, and taking advice from two of our medical advisers, that there was no reason to have repeated a flexiscope in Master A's case. In terms of referrals, investigations and treatment within the board, there was no evidence of avoidable delay. There was a delay in Master A having a polysomnography (sleep study), as he remained on a waiting list in another health board area. However, the board had limited, if any, influence over how quickly a referral to another health board would be actioned as it was not within their direct control, and there was evidence that they had pursued the referral with the other health board. As the referral had not taken place, the board acted correctly in referring Master A to a third health board area, where he was seen. Therefore, we found no evidence of avoidable delay by the board, and did not uphold this complaint.

In their letter to Mrs C, the board stated a date when 'failure to thrive' was first identified. The clinical records showed that a suggestion of 'failure to thrive' was first noted about a year previously. On that basis, we found that the board's letter to Mrs C should have accurately reflected this and, therefore, we upheld this complaint. Our decision notice drew this error to the board's attention and, therefore, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C complained about cosmetic dental treatment he received at a dental hospital between 2007 and 2010. Mr C initially underwent oral hygiene treatment, and then had surgical crown lengthening treatment to improve the appearance of his upper front teeth and his gum line. He had temporary crowns fitted at this time with a view to having permanent crowns fitted once the gum line had fully healed.

Mr C was dissatisfied with the outcome of the surgery, and the consultant responsible for his treatment agreed to carry out the procedure a second time. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the aesthetic outcome, and had a number of complaints about several aspects of his treatment.

He complained that his care and treatment was inadequate; that some information about his treatment was incorrect; and that his complaint was not properly responded to.
We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints about his treatment. We found that Mr C's treatment plan was consistent throughout; that Mr C's oral hygiene had improved as a result of his treatment; that there was no evidence to show Mr C had received inadequate care and treatment. We found that there appeared to have been an element of miscommunication in relation to some of the issues which arose during Mr C's treatment.

We did uphold Mr C's complaint that the board had failed to advise him of the SPSO, as our contact details were not included within their final letter to Mr C. We will bring this failing to the attention of the board to prevent recurrence.