Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the treatment her mother (Mrs A) received when she attended the emergency department at Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary having experienced a fall, and loss of mobility in her legs. Mrs A was discharged from hospital the same day. The following day, Mrs A was unable to mobilise and was admitted to hospital, where it was later discovered that she had suffered a stroke. Mrs C was unhappy that Mrs A was discharged, and complained that the opportunity for mitigating treatment for Mrs A's stroke and for further observation was lost. Mrs C said Mrs A had been visited at home by her GP the week earlier and that the GP said Mrs A might have had a slight stroke. Mrs C was unhappy that Mrs A's GP had not been consulted.

We took independent advice from a medical adviser. We found that the medical treatment Mrs A received was reasonable, and that, on the basis of tests appropriately carried out, stroke was not expected as the cause of Mrs A's mobility problems. We considered that, in the circumstances, stroke mitigating treatment would not have been appropriate and would not have altered the outcome for Mrs A. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the board's handling of her complaint. We found that Mrs C's complaint was not acknowledged or responded to within the correct timescale. We found that the board had already acknowledged these shortcomings, had apologised, and had explained the action they were taking to address them. Mrs C also raised some issues that were not addressed in the board's response. We found that a clearer explanation could have been given for the reasons for Mrs A's discharge. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to handle a planning application reasonably and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that the council had met their statutory obligations to make information about the application publicly available and had reasonably exercised their professional judgement in assessing the application. We found that the council's actions were reasonable and did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we found that there was an inconsistency in the report on the planning application which had not been identified by the council's complaint investigation. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint and provided feedback to the council. However, we noted that this error did not make a substantive difference to the outcome of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison officer placed a complaint form he had completed into a shredder. Mr C told us this had been witnessed by staff and other prisoners. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that the officer's version of events was that the complaint had been dealt with and Mr C was content that the paperwork could be disposed of. SPS accepted that the officer had failed to follow the Prison Rules, which require a clear process to be followed for every complaint received. In terms of the Rules, complaint paperwork has a retention period of 5 years. There is also a requirement for a copy of all complaints, whether resolved or escalated, to be retained in the prisoner's core file. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the SPS had already apologised to Mr C for the failings in the handling of his complaint, both in person and in writing, and we therefore did not make any recommendations.

We also looked at SPS' investigation of the complaint, given that Mr C had told us there were witnesses to the incident, but SPS had not interviewed any witnesses. SPS provided evidence that they had not been told of any witness until they received our formal enquiry. When they then interviewed Mr C about the witness to the incident, he told SPS that the individual did not wish to be involved. While it would have been good practice for the SPS to explore whether there were any witnesses, as part of their complaint investigation, we considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C to clearly identify any witnesses, and whether they supported his complaint, at the time of submitting his complaint to the Governor. He did not do that, therefore we found the SPS' investigation of his complaint was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C manages a direct payment on behalf of his two grandchildren. When the direct payment was set up the council exercised their discretion and permitted Mr  C to employ family relatives as personal assistants with the agreement that he would begin recruitment for independent personal assistants.

After some time, the council advised Mr C that he could no longer employ family members. The council also requested to observe the children in school as part of their social care assessment. Mr C complained that the council's policy regarding the employment of family members was unreasonable and and that they failed to explain their reason for visiting the children in school. Mr C also complained that the council did not properly follow their complaints procedure.

We took independent advice from a social worker. We found that the council's policy on the employment of family members was in line with national statutory guidance and that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We also found that it was reasonable for the council to request to observe the children in school. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council did not contact Mr C to discuss his complaint nor did they respond within the required working timescale as stated in their complaint handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to investigate his complaints about anti- social behaviour properly, resulting in him being put at risk. Mr C said he had been threatened and harassed but the council had failed to act on his complaints, deliberately ignoring him so that a final warning issued to his neighbour could lapse.

We found that Mr C's complaints of anti-social behaviour had been investigated. When the council had been able to verify the complaints, they had taken action against Mr C's neighbour, including issuing a final warning. There was no evidence that one had been issued and allowed to lapse, or that Mr C had complained of direct threats to his safety. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council failed to deal with his complaints about the level of service he had received. We found that the council had acknowledged a failure to respond timeously to Mr C's complaints and apologised appropriately. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint but made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the practice failed to contact him to arrange a blood test. Mr C's GP had referred him to the plastic surgery department who wrote back to the practice to request blood tests. The practice failed to contact Mr C to arrange the blood tests and he complained that this caused a delay in him receiving further treatment. Mr C also complained that the practice's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a GP. We found that the practice failed to contact Mr C to arrange the blood tests and upheld this aspect of his complaint. However, we noted that this failing was likely an administrative oversight and was not due to a lack of clinical skill. The practice acknowledged this failing and apologised.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the practice referred Mr C to our office appropriately and responded within the required timescales. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Clear Business Water provided him with inaccurate invoices and that their communication with him had been unreasonable.

We found that once a meter reading was submitted, Clear Business Water issued accurate invoices to Mr C. They also made various offers for discounts on the invoices, which they were not obliged to offer, and it was up to Mr C whether or not to accept them. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to communication, we found that Mr C had experienced delays with getting a response to his contacts. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As Clear Business Water had already acknowledged and apologised for this failing, we did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the care and treatment Miss A had received in the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital after she was admitted with axillary cellulitis (a bacterial skin infection around the armpit). The cellulitis increased over the next day and Miss A was eventually taken to theatre to have the damaged tissue removed.

We took independent advice from a consultant general and vascular surgeon (a  specialist in the treatment of diseases affecting the vascular system including diseases of the arteries, veins and lymphatic vessels). We found that there had been a delay in carrying out a scan when Miss A was admitted to the hospital. If an early X-ray had been carried out, the gas in the tissues would have indicated the severity of the infection and prompted immediate intervention. We considered that this delay possibly led to Miss A needing to have more tissue removed to control the infection. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that the board had apologised for this and had taken reasonable action in response to the matter.

Mr C also complained that Miss A had been kept on blood thinning medication for too long a period. Miss A had been prescribed the medication because she had previously had clots. The medication was increased in hospital after a CT scan showed a further clot. We found that it had been reasonable to keep Miss  A on blood thinning medication while she was in hospital, as she was immobile. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Miss A's blood thinning medication was then stopped after she developed a haematoma (a mass of blood). Miss A was subsequently discharged from hospital and died at home after suffering a pulmonary thromboembolism (a  blocked blood vessel in the lungs). Mr C felt that the appropriate blood thinning medication would have prevented this and complained that it was stopped rather than reduced after Miss A developed the haematoma. We found that it had been reasonable to stop the medication in view of the haematoma. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of an officer who works for the prison's escorting agency. Mr C was visiting his daughter in hospital and did not have photographic identification with him. Following their policy, the officer asked him to leave. Mr C complained that the officer threatened and swore at him.

Mr C's complaint was investigated by the escorting agency, who took witness statements and concluded that there had been no wrongdoing on the part of the officer. Mr C had filmed the incident on his mobile phone but had not provided the footage to the escorting agency at the time of their investigation. We viewed the footage and forwarded it to them for comment.

The escorting agency noted that a section of the footage showed the officer behaving in a standard below what they expect of their staff. They explained that the officer no longer worked for them so there was no action they could take, and they apologised to Mr C for what had happened. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the investigation, in particular that one of the officers present at the time of the incident had not been interviewed. We concluded that the investigation had been sufficiently thorough and proportionate, highlighting that if Mr C had provided the footage sooner the complaint could have been resolved at an early stage. We did not uphold the complaint about the standard of the investigation.

Summary

Mr C lived adjacent to a council house. There was water ingress into Mr C's property, and his roofing contractor felt that a chimney he shared with the council property was part of the problem. Mr C contacted the council, and he said they told him to take no action to repair the chimney, and that they would inspect their property and sort the problem. The council denied giving Mr C this advice, and it took them a year to gain access to their property and inspect it. The council decided they would not arrange removal of the chimney. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably told him to take no action to repair the chimney and that they unreasonably decided not to remove it.

We found that Mr C and a council officer had differing recollections of what was said about what the council would do. As there was no independent evidence from anyone who witnessed the conversation, we could not prove exactly what was said. We also found that, although Mr C disagreed with the councils' decision not to arrange removal of the chimney, there was no obligation on the council to arrange for removal, and they explained clearly to Mr C why they would not do so. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council delayed in gaining access to their property to inspect for water ingress. We found that the delay was unreasonable and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. As the council apologised to Mr C for the delay, we made no recommendations. However, we did feed back to the council about seeking to avoid such delays in future.