Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Ms A), who had been diagnosed in 2003 with bipolar disorder. Mrs C said that in 2011, despite her concerns, Ms A's diagnosis was changed, as was her medication. Ms A was not offered a second opinion and Mrs C said that her daughter’s condition went into 'free fall', reaching a crisis point in the summer of 2012. She complained that Ms A was offered little in the way of psychiatric support, and that appointments with a community psychiatric nurse were often cancelled without being rescheduled.

We gave all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence and Ms A's medical records, careful consideration. We also obtained independent advice on the case from a consultant forensic psychiatrist and a mental health nurse. Our investigation found that despite Mrs C's concerns, it was entirely correct for Ms A's diagnosis and medication to be kept under review and that the board had acted appropriately and reasonably in doing so. Mrs C's disagreement with this was well recorded, and was not discounted. However, in the circumstances, our adviser said that it might have been prudent to offer Ms A a second opinion.

The investigation also established that there had been no delay in providing new appointments when some were cancelled. However, there was evidence that the frequency of appointments was inconsistent and not as planned.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make a formal apology to Mrs C and Ms A for inconsistencies in the timing of appointments.

Summary

Mrs C complained about several aspects of her hospital care and treatment immediately before, during and immediately after the birth of her son. Mrs C's son was born by a forceps delivery which necessitated an episiotomy (a minor surgical cut that widens the opening of the vagina during childbirth). She also suffered a third-degree tear (a serious tear between the vagina and anus). She suffered a major haemorrhage (escape of blood) minutes later and required extensive life-supporting treatment. Mrs C was concerned that the complications she suffered might have been the result of poor care and treatment. She was also concerned that she and her husband were unsupported after such a traumatic experience and that this was causing her long-term health problems.

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, our investigation found that while Mrs C had undoubtedly had a very traumatic and difficult birth experience, it was not caused by poor care or inadequate treatment. We were, however, very critical that the need to refer her to counselling services was noted in the post-natal ward but not acted on. This meant that Mrs C and her husband were not properly supported after the birth. We upheld this aspect of her complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs C and her husband for the failure to refer her for appropriate counselling while she was in the post-natal ward; and
• review the failure to refer Mrs C to counselling services and identify any improvements that can be made to the referral process in the future.

Summary

Mr C leased and operated a pub that shared its water supply with a residential property. He complained that Business Stream unreasonably delayed in issuing their initial invoice – he had run the pub since 2007 and only received an invoice in 2010 – and that when it arrived it was unreasonably high. Mr C felt that this was at least partly attributable to the meter serving more than one property.

Although Mr C maintained that he had notified Scottish Water of his occupancy of the premises concerned in 2007, our investigation did not find evidence to confirm this and noted that as soon as Business Stream knew of his occupancy in 2010, they began issuing bills. However, the bills were for both business and domestic premises. We did find that took too long for Business Stream to provide an appropriate meter in Mr C's premises. Because of this, the bills issued were incorrectly based and Mr C had paid twice for his domestic use (through both the metered charges and his council tax).

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• make a formal apology for their role in the delay in providing an appropriate meter; and
• in the event of Mr C providing information to allow Scottish Water to refund overpaid charges, agree to refund him any difference in the cost.

Summary

Mr C's business occupied premises in a large office building. His office did not have its own water supply, but had access to the building's communal water facilities. In January 2013, Business Stream contacted Mr C and told him that he was liable for drainage charges accrued over five years. Mr C did not feel that his business should be liable for these charges, as his occupancy was agreed under a license with the property owner rather than a tenancy agreement. He said his office was not directly connected to a water supply and the terms of his license placed full responsibility for the building's fixtures and fittings on the licensor. Mr C also raised concerns about Business Stream's handling of his complaints.

Mr C had questioned whether his premises were 'eligible premises' as defined by the Water Services etc (Scotland) Act 2005. This defines premises that are eligible for water and drainage charges as those that are (or are to be) connected to the public water and sewerage systems. Although it is not for us to interpret this legislation, we investigated whether Business Stream gave proper consideration to relevant factors when reaching their decision. We found that they were obliged to set up their charges in accordance with the market code (which sets out the duties of participants in the water market, and provides technical specifications). Business Stream's treatment of Mr C's premises as an 'eligible premises' was in line with the code, which in turn was based on the legislation.

Mr C felt that all water and drainage charges for his premises should be charged to the property owner (licensor) rather than him, given his status as a licensee. Again, it was not for us to determine what status Mr C's license gave him, or what difference this might make in terms of who should be liable for charges. However, we were satisfied that Business Stream made appropriate enquiries to establish who should be charged, and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the information provided to them.

We were critical that Business Stream did not clearly explain to Mr C the reasoning behind their decision to charge his business for drainage, but we found that they responded to all of his correspondence in good time.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• take steps to improve the level of detail in their customer correspondence so that full explanations are given as to the reasoning behind their decisions; and
• apologise to Mr C for their failure to properly explain the reasoning behind charging him for drainage.

Summary

Mr C's complaint was made on behalf of a charity, who had received an unexpected bill from Business Stream for water service charges two years after they moved into their premises. Mr C complained both that the charity was being incorrectly pursued for charges because an exemption had been applied in their previous premises, and about the action taken by Business Stream to pursue payment, including threatening disconnection. He also complained of delay in issuing invoices, and confusion about the number of meters serving the premises, resulting in the wrong charges being pursued. He also said that there had been delay in resolving a separate error when invoices for other companies had been received at the charity's address.

From our investigation, we established that while the charity had discussed whether exemption applied, they had not provided evidence to support this or submitted a claim for exemption. We upheld the complaint about disconnection, however, as our investigation found that Business Stream had sent a letter to the premises in which disconnection was threatened if it was found that the premises were unoccupied, despite having known for some six months that they were occupied by the charity. We also found that invoices had been issued wrongly for two meters when the premises had only one, and that Business Stream had failed to explain this when they issued an invoice for amended charges. We did not uphold the complaint about the charity receiving mail for another company, as we found that Business Stream had addressed this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• apologise for the inaccurate and misleading letter; and
• contact the charity to discuss any remaining queries they may have about usage.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of a family member (Mrs A) about the council's actions in relation to pre-school contact with Mrs A's son, who has special educational needs. Mrs C complained that the pre-school home visiting service did not reasonably attempt to contact Mrs A after a referral from a speech and language therapist, and that the educational psychology service did not undertake actions in line with an agreement with Mrs A.

Following investigation we did not uphold the complaint about contact as we found evidence that they did try to contact Mrs A. We did uphold the complaint about the educational psychology service, as we found significant differences between a handwritten agreement provided by Mrs A and the typed version that was subsequently referred to by the council, as well as more general issues around communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs A that the educational psychology service did not provide a reasonable service in relation to the early years assessment process for her son; and
• revise relevant procedures and guidance to ensure that unsuccessful attempts at contact are recorded, that cover letters are provided with copies of reports or assessments sent to parents as part of the early years assessment and that there is consistency in all records made of discussions with parents.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained to us on behalf of his client (Mr A), about a planning application for an extension to an existing waste water treatment plant. Mr A lives close to the treatment plant, for which the council granted planning consent. He complained that the council failed to handle the application properly or effectively and had not taken steps to address his concerns or remedy defects that he had identified.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold most of Mr C's complaints as we were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the council had taken Mr A's objections into account when processing the application. We were also satisfied that there was no evidence of any fault in the handling of the application. However, we noted that the council had accepted that they failed to provide reasons for their decision to grant the application when they issued their decision notice, and had issued an amended notice attaching a copy of the planning report to explain the reasons for the decision. We were concerned that this meant that an interested party would have to read a number of pages to try to and elicit the specific reasons for the decision. We did not consider that this was a reasonable remedy to the original error in the decision notice, and upheld this complaint. As we were, however, generally satisfied that the council's revised procedures have addressed these failings, we made one recommendation to clarify the information on this decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider adding to the website a paragraph paraphrasing the handling report's arguments, to ensure clarity in this case.

Summary

Mr C, who is a landlord, complained that the council delayed in processing housing benefit applications for two of his tenants. As a result of this delay, and in particular their request to pay their rent direct to their landlord, Mr C said that the tenants gave up the lease. He also complained that, although the council had discretion to pay a landlord direct, they were failing to exercise this.

Our investigation established that the council had failed to correctly process the benefit claims. The council said that this was not due to a process failure, but provided no evidence to confirm that the handling of the applications followed a set practice or procedure. We did not find that the council had failed to pay rent directly to Mr C, as he had received payment, but we made recommendations for process improvements.

Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed in making payment to the tenants was borne out by the evidence. The legislation for payment of housing benefit requires the first payment to be made within 14 days of receipt of the claim, or if not reasonably practical, as soon as possible thereafter. In this case, the first payment to the landlord was made seven weeks after one of the tenants applied. As the reasons for the delay were not made clear, we upheld the complaint but made no recommendation because the council had already apologised to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their practices and procedures for processing applications for housing benefit; and
• review the handling of applications where a direct payment to a landlord is requested by a tenant, landlord or agent and consider the use of a dedicated form for a request for direct payment of rent.

Summary

Mr C complained about the heating system in his council property. He said that it was inefficient, that the council had failed to explain the system to him before he signed the tenancy agreement and had refused to allow him to opt out of the heating service. He also complained about the council's handling of his representations about it.

The heating system was a communal one, paid for by all the tenants in the block of flats, and had been installed a number of years before. The council accepted that, although it had been upgraded over the years, the system required further upgrading to make it more efficient, and said that they were in the process of planning to replace it. However, they said they were satisfied that it met their operational standard to provide suitable and safe heating. They also explained that the system was serviced on an annual basis and that, during the last service, no issues had been raised.

During our investigation, we found that the separate charge for the heating system had, in error, not been detailed on the tenancy agreement and that the council had no documentation to show that the heating system was explained to Mr C when he viewed the property before signing the tenancy agreement so we upheld his complaint about this. However, we did not uphold his other complaints as we were satisfied that the council had provided a proper heating system and had responded to his representations. They had explained that he could not opt out of the heating system, as it was communal, and that it could not be turned off for a single property.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider whether information should be provided on the heating system and the implications for the tenant, when sending out the 'first offer of housing' letter in relation to properties serviced by a communal heating system.

Summary

Mr C objected to a planning application submitted to the council for an extension to a building. He complained to us that the council refused to accept his further representations but allowed the applicant to make some, which he thought was unfair. We obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the further submissions from the applicant appeared to have been considered as supporting information, and did not change the nature of the proposal.

Mr C also complained that the council's system for providing public online access to planning documents was faulty, and that it continued to be a problem. Our investigation found that the council had not failed to provide relevant information online, but we suggested that it might be beneficial for them to look at whether their planning portal could be improved. We did find that they failed to acknowledge and respond to an email that Mr C had sent about his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to acknowledge and respond appropriately to his email.