Some upheld, recommendations

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.

Summary

Ms C complained about the length of time that the housing association took to complete repairs to her flat. She had moved into her property in December 2012 and had been in contact with the association from then on about repairs, before eventually making a formal complaint some three months later. At that point the association agreed to the works to be done and closed Ms C's complaint. However, Ms C then submitted a new complaint that her home had not met the standards that the association set for their properties. Because of this she said she wanted a refund of her rent up until that time.

The association upheld this complaint and acknowledged the delays in carrying out repairs. They offered Ms C a lesser amount of compensation but Ms C did not feel that this was appropriate. She told the association about the difficulties the delays had caused her in her particular circumstances and maintained that she should be entitled to a full rent rebate. Although the association's final response confirmed their earlier decision to uphold Ms C's complaint, confirmed that her home had not met their standards, and increased their offer, they did not agree to refund the rent in full.

We found evidence that the delays in having the repairs completed were unreasonable and so we upheld Ms C's complaint. However, we do not have the legal power to question the association's decision of how much compensation to award, unless there is some evidence of fault, omission or failure on their part in making that decision. We did not find this in Ms C's case, as the association had made their award based on the 'right to repair' regulations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• confirm to us that any repairs outstanding from Ms C's complaint have been completed.

Summary

Mrs C lives in a house that had electric night storage heaters, using an economy meter with a reduced tariff. Following public meetings with their tenants, the housing association decided to implement a programme of external wall insulation and replace night storage heating with an air source heat pump system. After the necessary consents were obtained, work started in November 2012, in phases of groups of houses. Tenants were advised of timescales and the start date, and were told that external works were weather dependent.

The internal work was completed in Mrs C's house the following February, during what turned out to be an extremely cold winter, but it was not until May that the external insulation was completed and scaffolding was removed. Mrs C complained that the information and advice she was given about the new heating system was inadequate, and that the association did not complete works within the specified timescales.

Our investigation found that the association had had a lot of contact with tenants to explain what would be involved. They had not, however, made it clear to Mrs C that she would lose her economy meter and would have to negotiate a new tariff for electricity with her energy supplier, and so we upheld her complaint about this. We did not uphold her other complaint as the association had made it clear in advance that external insulation works were weather dependent.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to advise Mrs C of the need to make early contact with her energy supplier;
• consider whether they should reimburse Mrs C for any unavoidable costs incurred between the removal of the economy meter and the application of the new tariff and confirm the outcome; and
• apologise for the confusion caused to Mrs C by a letter stating that the scaffolding had at that time been removed.

Summary

Mr C was undergoing treatment for leukaemia and had to have a 'Hickman Line' (a small tube to give long-term access to a vein to administer chemotherapy) inserted. Mr C complained that this procedure was not performed correctly as it had caused him a great deal of pain. He also complained that his complaint about it was not dealt with reasonably.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, found no evidence that the procedure was not carried out properly. The adviser said that different patients experience differing levels of pain in such a procedure and there was no evidence that anything went wrong with the first insertion. However, no record of the problems Mr C experienced was made at the time. The radiologist who performed the procedure had, after speaking to Mr C after the procedure, agreed to make a record in the clinical notes and to put an alert on the electronic records saying that Mr C required sedation for any future insertion. This did not happen and, when Mr C had to be admitted for a further line to be inserted, he was distressed that the team were not aware of his experience. Because of this, although we did not uphold the complaint about the procedure, we made recommendations about record-keeping.

On the matter of the complaints handling, it was clear from our investigation that for a number of reasons, there were extended delays in the handling of Mr C's complaint. Some of these were outside the board's control but some were not, and so we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C;
• conduct an audit of record-keeping in the department and use any learning points to formulate an action plan for improvement;
• ensure their patient information leaflet is provided to patients before consent is given and that this is documented; and
• provide evidence that the complaints handling team have learned from these events and that those learning points have been used to improve the service.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the care and treatment provided to Mrs A's late husband (Mr A) before he committed suicide. Mr A had a history of depressive illness. He was referred to a community psychiatric nurse (CPN). He saw both the CPN and the board's mental health assessment service before he was admitted to hospital after presenting with suicidal thoughts. He took his own life two days after being discharged from hospital.

In considering this complaint, we took independent advice from our psychiatric adviser, after which we upheld only one of Ms C's four complaints. Ms C had complained that the CPN delayed in referring Mr A to hospital. Our investigation found, however, that the CPN had not delayed in referring him to a consultant psychiatrist at the hospital. We were also satisfied that there were reasonable attempts to manage Mr A with other treatments, and noted that there was contact with other parts of psychiatric services at an early stage.

Ms C also complained that the board failed to make a reasonable diagnosis or offer reasonable treatment and medication to Mr A when he was admitted to hospital. Our investigation found that Mr A's case was complex and he had diagnoses of personality disorder and depression. The risks he presented were considered and assessed, but it was concluded that he did not meet the criteria for detention. We found that attempts had been made to manage his case with appropriate drug and psychological treatments and our adviser said that his treatment and medication were reasonable.

Ms C also complained that the board failed to carry out an appropriate risk assessment. She said that they failed to properly assess the risk of suicide and child protection issues. She also said that they had failed to involve Mrs A when deciding to discharge Mr A. We found that the hospital had carried out frequent risk assessments on Mr A in a satisfactory manner. He did not show impaired decision-making and so could not be detained in hospital. We also found that Mrs A was involved as far as possible in her husband's care, and that child protection issues were taken into account. However, we upheld the complaint about the assessment of risk, as we found that Mr A had been discharged to his brother's home. We considered that the hospital should have asked Mr A for consent to contact his brother in order to involve him in the discharge plan, and to check if there were children at his address. We noted that the standard documentation around discharge had not been completed and had this been done, it could have acted as a prompt to contact Mr A's brother.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make the staff involved in Mr A's care and treatment aware of our findings.