Some upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take reasonable action in response to reports of bullying of Mr C's daughter at her school. Mr C also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to his subsequent complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's concerns about the actions taken concerning the bullying because the evidence showed that the actions taken by the school were in line with the steps set out in the council's policy.

We noted that the council failed to process Mr C's complaint in line with the requirements of their complaints procedure. The complaint was not acknowledged within the required timescale and the council failed to keep Mr C informed about an extension to the complaint investigation, although the actual investigation itself was carried out to a reasonable standard. For this reason, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the college failed to provide him with the facilities advertised and about the time taken to deal with his complaint.

Mr C was unable to provide us with information about the specific facilities advertised and, as the college's website had changed since the time Mr C joined the course, the college were also unable to provide this information. Given that we had no advertising material against which to judge Mr C's complaint, we could not reach a finding on the matter and therefore we could not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C contacted the college's finance department, saying he was not paying fees because of his dissatisfaction with the course. The finance department failed to pass Mr C's complaint to the relevant complaints handling staff or tell him how to make a formal complaint. Although there were subsequent delays in Mr C pursing his complaint with the college, it was clear that he had submitted a complaint and that the college failed to deal with it appropriately at that time. On balance, we concluded that because of this failure there was an unreasonable delay in the college dealing with Mr C's complaint and we therefore upheld this aspect of his complaint. We did not make a recommendation as the college had already taken action to remedy their failing, by explaining to their finance department when to pass on complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained about the care and treatment she received at St John's Hospital. She had been diagnosed with skin cancer and had an operation in the hospital to remove the cancer. She said that, after the operation, the anaesthetist refused to give her further pain relief without having seen her when she asked for this.

We took independent advice from an anaesthetist. We found that Miss C had been seen by the anaesthetist when she requested additional pain relief and that their decision that she had already received appropriate and adequate pain relief was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.

Miss C also complained that there was an unreasonable delay by nurses in providing her with pain relief she had requested later that day. We found that there had been an unreasonable delay in providing the pain relief and upheld the complaint. However, we were satisfied that the board had apologised for this and had taken action to prevent such delays occurring in the future.

Miss C also complained that the surgeons had not discussed her concerns with her at an appointment, as the board's response to her complaint said they would. We found that the board had written to Miss C to say that they had shared her concerns with the surgeons and they would discuss the matter at her next appointment. However, Miss C's concerns were not discussed at the appointment, as they had not been shared with the surgeons. We also upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint. However, we were satisfied that the board had apologised to Miss C for this and had offered to arrange a further meeting.

Finally, Miss C complained about the board's handling of her complaint. We also upheld this complaint, as we found that there had been an unreasonable delay in responding, although the board had apologised for this and had provided us with evidence that they had taken action to prevent such delays in the future.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to include all objections to a planning application on their e-planning portal and that, although they acknowledged they failed to place his objection on the planning portal when considering his initial complaint, they told him it was on the planning portal when they responded to him at stage two of their complaints procedure. Mr C was unhappy with this inconsistency.

Mr C was also concerned that the council had ignored a planning condition restricting the start of development and had gone ahead with preparatory works which, Mr C believed, was contrary to the planning condition.

We reviewed the records and agreed with Mr C that his objection was not on the e-planning portal at the time the application was being considered. We upheld this element of Mr C's complaint.

We noted, however, that his objections were summarised in full in the planning officer's report to committee and they were, therefore, fully aware of his views. We also noted that the stage two response to his complaint was reasonable as Mr C's comments were on the online planning portal, but they were summarised in the report rather than being presented in full. We also noted that the condition Mr C considered was being breached by the council starting works had in fact been amended to allow works to go ahead at an earlier stage. For this reason, we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C was referred to St John's Hospital for her first maternity appointment. Mrs C complained that during her pregnancy, community midwives failed to provide her with a reasonable level of care and that she was not given antenatal blood screening as she said she required. Mrs C's baby was stillborn.

We took independent advice from a specialist in haemostatis and thrombosis and from a midwife. We found that as Mrs C had a family history of deep veinous thrombosis, she was correctly referred to a specialist clinic for tests. These tests showed no evidence of personal risk for Mrs C and as such no further blood testing was required. However, it was agreed to offer her blood thinning medication after the baby's birth. While Mrs C believed that if further blood screening tests had been carried out she may not have lost her baby, we found no evidence of this. We found that the midwifery care and treatment given to Mrs C had been of a reasonable standard. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C said that her placenta was lost when it was sent for testing. We found that when the placenta was sent to the laboratory, it was not accompanied by the appropriate paperwork and for this reason it was destroyed. We upheld this element of Mrs C's complaint. The board apologised for this and put new procedures in place to prevent the same happening again.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had failed to properly notify two neighbouring properties of a planning application near to her home. She was also concerned that the council granted planning consent despite being informed that land which the applicant had suggested was under their ownership was not. She reported a number of breaches of a planning condition restricting noise on the site outwith the working day and was unhappy that the council did not take additional action against the developer for breaching this condition. Mrs C was also unhappy with the way the council dealt with her subsequent complaint.

The council had previously acknowledged that, as a result of a computer error, they failed to notify two neighbouring properties. They explained the steps they had taken to fix their computer record and apologised to the owners of the properties concerned.

We were satisfied that the council had failed to notify these neighbours as they were required to, and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. As they had already taken steps to correct their system records and had apologised to the property owners, we made no recommendations on this point.

As the council had obtained appropriate certification from the developer in respect of land ownership, as they had reminded the developer of their responsibilities to comply with the condition relating to noise outwith working hours and as they dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure, we did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C and his representative sought pre-application advice from the council before submitting a planning application for a property he wished to build. On the basis of the advice, Mr C submitted a planning application. Mr C complained about the council's handling of pre-application contact and the decision not to refer the application to a committee for approval.

We reviewed the information received from Mr C, his representative for the application and the council, as well as the council's Pre-Application Advice Guidance Note and their Scheme of Delegation. We found that the council had not kept a record of consultations with Mr C's representative, including a site meeting. We upheld Mr C's complaint that they had failed to keep proper records of additional relevant advice given.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to provide consistent advice at the pre-application and application stage, contrary to their guidance. We considered that the council had given a reasonable explanation for the meaning of the word 'qualified' within the guidance, explaining that the advice was not absolute. We did not consider that any recommendations were required as the council had already apologised to Mr C and taken action to remind staff of the importance of recording pre-application enquiries and responses and ensuring that this includes a standard disclaimer.

Regarding Mr C's complaint that the council failed to follow their Scheme of Delegation, we considered that the council had provided a reasonable explanation for their decision and therefore did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C said that her medical practice did not provide a reasonable response to phone calls she made when she became unwell. Specifically, she had to phone three times before her call was returned towards the end of the working day by a GP. We found the practice had no record of the first two phone calls Mrs C made, although they did not dispute she had made them.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. We concluded that the response from the practice to Mrs C's calls was a reasonable one as she received a return call and telephone consultation the same day she requested it. Therefore we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the GP she spoke to on the phone failed to check her records for allergies. In doing so, the GP missed that a drug prescribed to Mrs C by an emergency out-of-hours GP was one that she had previously suffered an adverse reaction to. We therefore upheld this complaint. The GP practice apologised to Mrs C for the distress and discomfort she suffered.

Summary

Mr C was referred by his GP for a possible hernia operation. Mr C complained to us that the board failed to arrange his operation within the 12-week treatment time guarantee under the Patients Rights (Scotland) Act and that they failed to advise him of his rights under that Act. He also complained that they failed to arrange his treatment at another health board.

We found that there was a delay in Mr C's case, though this was in arranging his out-patient appointment rather than the operation. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, the board failed to meet the 12-week waiting time target for out-patient appointments but apologised and explained this was because of staff shortages which had now been addressed.

We found delays in the handling of Mr C's complaints to the board and we therefore upheld this aspect of his complaint. The board apologised to Mr C and said they are taking steps to address future delays.

Summary

Mrs C's mother (Mrs A) was admitted to Raigmore Hospital with a broken arm. Mrs A was transferred to Nairn Town and County Hospital six days later for rehabilitation and discharged home. During this period, Mrs C became concerned that Mrs A had broken her arm again and complained about a number of aspects of the discharge arrangements including the inadequacy of the discharge package. Shortly after her discharge home, staff decided to place Mrs A in a care home because it became apparent that the discharge package was insufficient to help her remain at home safely. Mrs A returned home six weeks later but was later readmitted to Raigmore Hospital, where she died. Mrs C was also concerned that district nursing staff had failed to successfully treat Mrs A's pressure ulcer. Finally, Mrs C complained that the board failed to provide her with a full copy of their internal review of the discharge.

We took independent advice from an orthopaedic adviser and a nursing adviser. We found that the medical care and treatment was reasonable, including the decision to treat the fracture conservatively (giving no medical treatment involving radical therapy or an operation), and that while the fracture did not heal as expected, this did not indicate a further fracture or an unreasonable standard of care. We also found that the pressure ulcer care was reasonable, as was the decision to send a summary of the key findings of the internal review to Mrs C. We therefore did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaints. However, in relation to the discharge we found significant failings around discharge planning and the subsequent package, which meant that Mrs A had to be transferred to a care home for a short period. We therefore upheld this complaint. However, in light of the actions already taken by the board to address these failings, and their acknowledgement and apology to Mrs C, we made no recommendations.