Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to the housing association that they were not responding to his complaint and that they would not let him keep a dog in his tenancy. Mr C asked for a variation to his tenancy agreement as he wanted a dog for therapeutic reasons to assist with an existing health condition. The association stated that they were not aware that he had any existing health condition and that, should he provide evidence of this, they would consider his request for a dog. The association did not respond to his stage one complaint due to staffing issues and referred his stage two complaint to their solicitors as they deemed the complaint to be of a detailed and complex nature. Following the final response to his stage two complaint, Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

Mr C told us that he had advised staff at the association of his health condition during a meeting. However, the association had no record of this meeting. As we could not determine if this meeting occurred due to a lack of evidence, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the association had unreasonably refused to allow him to keep a pet dog.

Regarding the way the association had responded to Mr C's complaints, we noted that incorrect timescales had been provided to Mr C and that the association's responses did not signpost to us. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, as the association had already apologised for not responding to Mr C's stage one complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her husband (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received at the Institute of Neurological Sciences at the former Southern General Hospital. Mr A was treated for spontaneous intracranial hypotension (low fluid pressure inside the head) which is a condition that can be caused by the development of a leak of cerebrospinal fluid (a fluid found in the brain and spine that provides protection for the brain). Mrs C submitted three separate complaint letters to the board over a number of months. Her complaints related to the investigative procedures that were carried out in an attempt to locate the site of the leak, the care and treatment provided to Mr A, and the board's handling of her complaint.

We took independent advice from a consultant neurologist and a consultant neuro-radiologist. We found that an initial scan was not accurately reported which the board had identified themselves and apologised for. They also took steps to address the matter to prevent recurrence. Whilst we noted that this error caused some delay in Mr A's treatment, we did not consider that it had significantly affected his outcome given that the scan had not shown the actual site of the leak. In addition, we did not consider that a neuro-surgery referral was indicated because no definite site of a leak had been identified. We also considered that the type of scanning machine used was appropriate. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We did not identify any significant failings in obtaining Mr A's consent to another investigative procedure but considered that there should have been a record of a discussion with Mr A that there was a risk it could cause worsening headaches. We did not identify any concerns about the way in which the procedure was carried out and considered it was accurately reported. A further scan carried out a week later was also properly reported and Mr A received reasonable care and treatment afterwards. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In terms of the board's handling of Mrs C's complaints correspondence, we identified that there was undue delay in their final response which the board accepted and had apologised for. We found that the board had regularly updated Mrs C about the delays and explained the reasons for this. We identified that the board had given inaccurate information to Mrs C about requesting and agreeing extensions to the 20-working-day target for responding to complaints. We also found that the board should have explained in an earlier letter to Mrs C that Mr A's initial scan was inaccurately reported, although they addressed this in later correspondence. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. The board explained that they had already taken action to prevent these issues from arising again in the future, and we requested that they send us evidence of this.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of assessments of his business following the imposition of a remedial action notice under the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006. He also complained that the council incorrectly registered his business and failed to correct this within a reasonable time-frame.

The council inspected Mr C's business and served a remedial action notice. Mr C said he sought to comply with the notice, but that the council continuously changed what was being required from him. He also said that the council failed to take into account the expert views of a food hygiene consultant who was assisting him to comply with the notice. Finally, Mr C said it had emerged that the council had not managed his earlier application for registration correctly.

After reviewing submissions from the council and Mr C we found that the council had relied on the professional judgement of their officers in assessing compliance with the remedial action notice. We found that there was extensive correspondence between the council, Mr C, and his consultant. In this correspondence we saw evidence that the council had taken into account opposing views, and had sought to explain their position. There was no requirement for the council's officers to reach the same view as Mr C's consultant. While Mr C had said that the council had shifted what was being required, we found that the correspondence suggested that the council were seeking to explain what evidence they needed to be satisfied that compliance had occurred, and not that they were changing what they were asking for. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to assess his business reasonably following the imposition of the remedial action notice.

Regarding Mr C's complaint about the incorrect registration of his business, the council acknowledged that there had been problems in the handling of applications. They explained that they had not requested the appropriate form from Mr C at the time he made his application for registration. They said that they had apologised to Mr C and had taken action to improve their management of the files. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, as the council had apologised to Mr C and taken action to address this issue, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment the board provided to her late husband (Mr A) at Wishaw General Hospital.

Mr A underwent an urgent left groin lymph node biopsy. He re-attended hospital the next day with a serious infection. Mr A remained at the hospital for approximately five months. He was discharged and remained out of hospital for approximately eight months. Mr A was readmitted with a urinary tract infection, but his condition deteriorated over approximately two months and he died.

Mrs C raised a number of concerns relating to the medical and nursing care during Mr A's admissions, as well as communication within the hospital and with Mr A's family. This included concerns that the initial procedure was carried out incorrectly, that Mr A was mishandled physically by staff, and that hygiene practices were poor.

We took independent advice from consultant in general medicine and from a nurse. We found that consent for the initial operation had been appropriately obtained, and that the infection was a rare but recognised complication of the procedure. We noted that the seriousness of this infection had severely impacted on Mr A's health and had led to two long and complicated admissions. We found that the nursing care was reasonable, with appropriate monitoring and wound care recorded. We also noted that we were unable to identify evidence to support Mrs C's concerns about Mr A being mishandled physically at the hospital. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

We upheld Mrs C's complaints regarding communication within the hospital and communication with the family. However, we found that the board had already accepted these failings and had apologised. As such, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's handling of her complaint to a social work complaints review committee (CRC).

Ms C was in receipt of direct payments for six hours per week of respite care in regards to the care of her daughter. Outside of these hours, Ms C was the sole carer for her daughter. Ms C was advised by her doctor to undergo surgery which would require several weeks of recuperation in hospital. Ms C requested that throughout this period the council increase her direct payments in order for her to pay her mother to look after her daughter during the surgery and recuperation time. The council refused this request, explaining that they did not consider the circumstances merited the payment of a family member. Ms C complained about this and took her complaints to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Ms C complained to us that there was an unreasonable delay in arranging the CRC, that there were inaccuracies in the council's submissions to the CRC, that the CRC unreasonably refused to consider certain evidence and that the minute of the CRC hearing unreasonably failed to mention this.

We found that there were unreasonable delays in the council arranging the CRC hearing and we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had since offered an apology for these delays, and we therefore made no recommendations. We did not find evidence to support Ms C's complaints about the council's submission to the CRC, the CRC's consideration of evidence or the minute of the CRC hearing. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to protect his family lair (burial plot) in line with their responsibilities by approving the internment of the ashes of his brother-in-law without his knowledge or approval, and that the council failed to respond to his subsequent complaint in accordance with their responsibilities.

We were satisfied that the council acted in line with the Regulations for the Management of Burial Grounds in East Lothian, and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's response to his subsequent complaint, as we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaint within 20 working days and failed to keep him appropriately updated. The council told us they had since improved their complaints handling processes, and had carried out staff training, and they provided us with evidence of that.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of five outstanding statutory notices which had been issued in respect of his property prior to his purchase of the property. In particular, Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify his solicitor of one of the statutory notices when he was considering purchasing the property. The council apologised to Mr C that, due to an error, Mr C's solicitor had not been provided with information on this statutory notice. However, they provided evidence that full information on all the outstanding statutory notices had been provided to the previous owner and their solicitor, including the statutory notice in question. Given that the information had been provided to one of the two parties in the sale of the property, we considered that information on the statutory notice should have been available when Mr C was purchasing the property. The council's position, based on legal advice they had obtained, was that they were entitled to pursue Mr C for the debt outstanding on this statutory notice. While we upheld the complaint, given the action taken by the council to apologise to Mr C we made no further recommendations.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide his solicitor with an accurate estimate of the costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices. Mr C complained that the figure given to his solicitor increased substantially in the final invoice. The council provided evidence of information that had been provided on the estimated costs of the other four outstanding statutory notices, including advice that the final cost was still being calculated. They further explained that a search of their records had provided no documentation detailing the estimate of cost suggested by Mr C. In the absence of evidence that written confirmation was provided by the council that the cost for the works would be as suggested by Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's management of works required to be carried out to his property under the terms of three statutory notices. He further complained that they failed to provide detailed invoices, did not respond to his queries, overcharged him, and failed to deal with his complaints about these matters appropriately.

Mr C's complaints were a number of many made over recent years to the council about statutory notice work that had been carried out . In response, the council established a new complaints process to deal specifically with statutory notice complaints. This included a sample review by an external company to provide independent advice. Mr C's complaints went through this process and a number of shortcomings were found. Because of this, his invoices were greatly reduced and administration costs and VAT were waived. Mr C remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to SPSO.

We found that the council had failed to manage the contracts appropriately and had previously charged him for work that had not been carried out. However, they had since taken action to address these matters and had reissued correct invoices. We found no evidence that Mr C's complaint was handled unreasonably and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that her university failed to provide adequate guidance for her first attempt at her dissertation. She also complained that the university did not allow her to resit two assessments that she had previously passed, even though she had mitigating circumstances.

We found that when dealing with her academic appeal, the university accepted that there were problems with the supervision Miss C received. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, because the university had already apologised to Miss C and she had resat the failed component, we had no recommendations to make as the matter had been remedied.

University regulations were clear that a student could not resit an assessment that had already been passed in order to improve their mark, even if there were mitigating circumstances. In dealing with Miss C's case, the university balanced the need to adhere to their regulations with the exercise of their academic judgement. We cannot question the exercise of academic judgement, and there was no evidence that the university failed to follow their regulations in Miss C's case. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her adult daughter (Miss A) at Loch View House, which is a specialist facility for providing care to patients with learning disabilities.

Mrs C raised concern that following her daughter's admission to Loch View House, staff did not take into account that her clinical problems could have been due to difficulties with Miss A's diabetes control. We noted that Miss A was under the care of a consultant psychiatrist during the admission and we sought independent advice from a psychiatric adviser. They considered that the medical records clearly showed that staff had reviewed Miss A's history of diabetes management in the community and had recognised that Miss A's behavioural change might be related to her diabetic control. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained about the way that staff managed Miss A's diabetes throughout the admission. We found that the board had acknowledged issues in relation to the provision of needles, required for administering medication, and had apologised to Mrs C for this. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser on this aspect of the complaint. They were satisfied that the board had put reasonable steps in place to address this issue and that appropriate steps for learning and improvement had been identified. We upheld this complaint, but did not make any further recommendations as the board had already taken action.

Finally, Mrs C expressed dissatisfaction that staff failed to communicate with her adequately about her daughter's treatment. The psychiatric adviser found that the medical records evidenced regular communication with Mrs C and other members of the family throughout the course of Miss A's admission. They added that the records showed a high level of contact, mostly by phone, with detailed discussion and timely responses to concerns raised. The adviser considered that this level of contact was appropriate given Miss A's needs and they noted the entries clearly described the views of the family and the efforts of the clinical team to reassure them where there were differences in opinion over the management of Miss A. We were unable to conclude that the communication was unreasonable and we did not uphold this complaint.