Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that after she experienced sewage flooding into her garden, the council's environmental health and building control departments failed to take sufficient action. She alleged that as a consequence, the health of her family had been compromised. She was also unhappy that the council had allowed the owner of the property causing the problem to live in his house without having had a completion certificate provided. Mrs C said that after she complained formally about these matters, the council failed to respond properly to her concerns and did not deal with her formal complaint in terms of their own complaints process.

We investigated the complaint and took all the information provided by the council and Mrs C into account. This included the complaints files, internal emails, water testing results and inspection notes, together with drainage plans and the relevant environmental health and building legislation. Our investigation found that, while the council took appropriate action after a meeting, for about five months beforehand there had been no plan or impetus to resolve the matter, and so we upheld this part of the complaint. After the meeting, environmental health and building standards departments worked with the neighbour to find a resolution to the problem. There were some delays, but these were caused by the neighbour. The council took the view that in both this matter and that of the completion certificate, they would rather work with the neighbour's cooperation than take enforcement action against him. We found that this was a decision they were entitled to take. In terms of complaints handling, after Mrs C complained, the council found her correspondence challenging to deal with because of the amount that she sent them. Nevertheless, after tracking all the documentation as part of this investigation, we found that, overall, they dealt with Mrs C's complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the initial delay; and
• apologise for their failure in this matter.

Summary

An application for planning consent was made to the council for a single wind turbine on an industrial estate about 800 metres from Mr C's home. Mr C lived too far away to be notified and was unaware that this had happened. He only became aware of this when the wind turbine was built. Mr C then had extensive email contact with one of his local councillors who tried to answer Mr C's questions or to direct them to a senior planning officer. The councillor then contacted the chief executive's office and the matter was dealt with by that office as a complaint review and was acknowledged as such to Mr C. Mr C responded, stressing that he was not at that time making a complaint but was gathering information. He said he reserved the right to make a complaint later.

Mr C complained to us about the council's complaints handing, and after investigation, we upheld two of his five complaints. The most significant of these was that the chief executive's service dealt with and responded to his questions by way of a complaint review. However, Mr C had specifically said that he was not making a complaint, and he had quite clearly not previously complained. It was, therefore, inappropriate for them to have dealt with his correspondence by way of a complaints review.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that, if an elected member passses a matter to the Chief Executive's service to be dealt with at the final stage of the council's complaints procedure, the service check with the aggrieved person that they wish the matter to be dealt with that way, and which issues are to be addressed.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of the residents of his street about noise disturbance from a nearby construction site. A supermarket was being built, and Mr C's complaints centred around early morning and/or late night working and deliveries; failure to enforce adherence to planning conditions; failure to monitor and/or enforce action on breaches of conditions; failure to address his complaints; and communication issues.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from our planning adviser, concluded that there had been some communication issues and failures in complaints handling. However, on the majority of complaints we found that the council had taken reasonable and proportionate action to monitor the site. When Mr C first complained about early/late working, the council investigated and then issued a notice to restrict the times of certain types of work and/or deliveries to the site. While there were some breaches of these conditions, we found that the monitoring action taken by the council, which included unannounced site visits, was reasonable and proportionate. We upheld two of Mr C's nine complaints, about shortcomings in correspondence and about a council official's meeting with the residents.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failings identified; and
• review the processes for deciding what is a service request and what is a complaint, and ensure that staff are adequately informed of and trained in the application of the processes; also ensure that the complaints literature makes this clear to complainants.

Summary

Some six months after the council granted planning consent with conditions for two wind turbines near his home, Mr C found out about the planning application. When he researched the background of the application, he found a defect in the council's referencing of the site on their website. He also thought that there were flaws in the council's handling of noise assessment in the officers' report on the application.

Mr C submitted three complaints against the council, of which we upheld two. Our investigation found that the council's website did contain a flaw. Anyone responding to the public notice of the application and entering the planning case reference on the search page was directed to a site map. This should have been centred on the geographical coordinates of the two turbines, but was actually centred on an unrelated locality several kilometres away. This had not, however, affected Mr C as he had not seen the public notice in time to make representations about this. The council responded to Mr C's concerns by checking some 847 wind turbine applications. They found an error in five of these, took corrective action and offered an explanation. We also found that the officers' report contained errors in distances and directions, which should not have occurred. We did not uphold Mr C's third complaint that the council failed to ensure that an appropriate and accurate noise assessment was carried out before considering the application. Our investigation found that the council had routinely used a simplified method and had imposed appropriate conditions, which had not relied specifically on the figures in the applicant's noise assessment.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind case officers preparing reports on applications of the need to check the accuracy of distances and orientations.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to repair a faulty meter that was installed in his property in 2010 and that, when he told them in February 2011 that he had had to remove it because it had failed in bad weather, they did not replace it until March 2012. Mr C said when Scottish Water (who retain some responsibility for meters even when a customer of Business Stream) picked up the meter he had been told they could not be bothered installing a new one. In March 2012 Mr C was told that his bills from 2011 to 2012 would be recalculated. He was unhappy that this meant that from March 2011 to March 2012 he was being billed on an unmeasured basis, costing him much more than if he had been on a meter. The bills had previously been worked out on an estimated basis. Mr C also said that he had applied for e-billing but had problems accessing his account.

We were not able to uphold Mr C's claim that Scottish Water had said at a meeting that they would replace the meter in June 2010. As there was a zero reading when it was removed in March 2011, Mr C had not paid for any water usage, and had only paid standard charges, from June 2010 until the meter was removed. Mr C was also not charged for the installation of the new meter. Business Stream were charged but did not pass this cost on.

In March 2011, Scottish Water told Business Stream that Mr C had not let them install a meter. Business Stream emailed Mr C to tell him this and that he would be billed on an unmeasured basis. Mr C did not receive this email. We also found that Mr C tried to sign up for e-billing in April 2011, but this was not activated until July 2011. Despite this, he did not receive a bill that should have been sent to him by post in May 2011, given e-billing was not yet available to him.

Our investigation found that within two days of physically removing the meter Scottish Water should have updated a central database with the information that it had been removed. They did not do so for twelve months, which meant that all Mr C's bills for that period were calculated on the wrong basis. There is a responsibility on customers to ensure they are paying properly for the services they receive. However, this was not a case where Mr C had failed to provide information. Both Business Stream and Scottish Water were aware that the information was wrong and that Mr C was being billed on the wrong basis for twelve months. Mr C had moved very quickly to have a meter installed in 2012, when he became aware of this. We, therefore, took the view that, if he had received bills on the basis that he did not have a meter, it was likely he would have acted quickly to resolve this. While this is only a likely possibility rather than a certainty, a twelve-month failure to ensure that the bills were accurate prevented Mr C from acting to reduce them. On this basis, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• recalculate the bill for the period March 2011 until the meter was installed, based on an estimate of water usage using recent readings;
• apologise to Mr C for the failing identified; and
• share our decision letter with Scottish Water.
• 

Summary

Ms C complained that during a regeneration process the council unreasonably failed to provide information to residents; misinformed them; or changed or denied information given to them about the process and their rights. This included information about 'right to buy'; financial assistance with moving costs; and rehousing options. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably, without telling residents, closed and sealed the bin stores and rubbish chutes in the area, and unreasonably failed to repair street lighting despite requests to do so.

Our investigation found that much of the information provided to residents during the regeneration consultation process and the ongoing regeneration programme was either provided verbally to individuals, or informally at public meetings and open days. For this reason, it was difficult for us to determine what exactly Ms C had been told or promised. Although we, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaints about the information provided on the regeneration process, we made a recommendation to address some of the issues that arose around this process.

We did uphold Ms C's other two complaints. The council had explained that the bin stores and rubbish chutes were closed to prevent vandalism; fire setting; and theft. Although we considered that this was in itself reasonable, we found that the way the council went about it was not, nor were the responses provided to Ms C when she complained. The council told Ms C that the electricity supplier for the area had insisted that the bin stores be sealed up to prevent vandalism and to stop copper wiring being stolen from electrical switching boxes. However, Ms C said that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores but in cupboards next to them. During our investigation - but not until some months into it - the council acknowledged that they knew that the boxes were not actually in the bin stores. They said that council officers had referred to the 'bin store' when they meant the entire basement areas of the housing blocks. We took the view that had the council made this clear at an early stage of dealing with Ms C's complaint, this would have given more credibility to their responses, and would have reduced the stress and worry she experienced over this matter. The council were not able to provide us with evidence to show that the electricity provider had insisted that the bin stores and chutes were welded shut. We also found that responsibility for the street lighting was shared with the electricity supplier, in that they were responsible for power supply issues and the council were responsible for repairing defective lights. While there was evidence of some action being taken by the council, we found gaps in the process, and times when no action was being taken.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue a written apology for the failures identifed in our investigation; and
• consider producing area-specific information leaflets for residents affected by regeneration projects and to record any information or advice given to individuals.

Summary

Miss C lives next to a sports facility, which was opened in 2006. She complained that the council failed to take responsibility for the escalating problems arising from the use of the football pitch, or to provide appropriate measures to resolve the nuisance. Miss C also complained that the council delayed in dealing with her complaint.

We explained to Miss C that we could not look at the decision to grant planning permission or any of the things that happened before she complained to the council in 2011, essentially because these were too old for us to look at. Our investigation did look at the recent action the council had taken to address concerns of nuisance arising from the use of the facility, and noted that there was evidence that they had engaged with Miss C, and others acting on her behalf. Although she said she thought more could be done to resolve the nuisance, Miss C did not identify what this was. We did not uphold this complaint. We were satisfied that the council took action to try to address Miss C's concerns, and in responding to our enquiry, they had agreed to meet Miss C to discuss any outstanding issues and whether a solution could be found.

We did, however, find that the council delayed in dealing with Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the delay in handling Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C live in a conservation area. They made five complaints about the council's handling of two related planning applications made by their next door neighbours to construct a two storey rear extension. A consequence of the proposed works was the blocking of an existing first floor bedroom window, and the insertion of a new window facing Mr and Mrs C's property. This had consequences for Mr C and Ms C's family's privacy, as the new window overlooked one bathroom and two bedroom windows in their home. Mr C and Ms C had received appropriate neighbour notification about the applications but there was no specific mention of the window in the description of the works or supporting statements. This meant that their attention had not been drawn to the proposed new window, and so they had not objected.

Our investigation upheld three of Mr C and Ms C's four complaints about the processing of the applications (both of which had been the subject of a site visit by the planning case officer). Having taken independent advice from a planning adviser, we found that the absence of objection was not material. The onus rested with the council to demonstrate that they had fully assessed the applications in accordance with the relevant development plan including relevant supplementary planning guidance with regard to privacy in the two reports of handling. We found that the council had not done that and so we upheld these complaints. We also upheld a complaint that the council had provided unsatisfactory and inconsistent responses to Mr C and Ms C's complaint (in relation to the effect of the conservation area designation).

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider its position in securing the necessary works to alter the daylighting of Mr C and Ms C's neighbour's first floor room to remove the overlooking of bedroom windows in Mr C and Ms C's property.

Summary

Mr C's mother (Ms A) was admitted to hospital with chest pain. A CT scan (a special scan using a computer to produce an image of the body) was carried out, and suggested an underlying tumour. The board decided that a biopsy (a sample of tissue) was required to diagnose Ms A's condition. The sample was taken at hospital two weeks later. The results confirmed that Ms A had high grade lymphoma (a type of cancer). A chemotherapy regime (a treatment where medicine is used to kill cancerous cells) was planned, but Ms A started to deteriorate and died four weeks after admission to hospital. Mr C was concerned about the time taken to diagnose Ms A's condition and that she had not been adequately hydrated when she was under the care of the board.

As part of our investigation, we sought independent advice from a medical adviser. He considered that the board needed to obtain a biopsy to diagnose Ms A's condition. He further explained that the biopsy would have been difficult to obtain because of its location and the risks involved. The adviser considered it reasonable that medical staff were fully appraised of the situation and had to consider the best way of obtaining a biopsy. We accepted the adviser's view, and did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that Ms A had not been adequately hydrated. Ms A's medical notes indicated that instructions had been given to administer intravenous (IV - administered into a vein) fluid to rehydrate Ms A. This therapy was started two days after the instructions to do so had been given. We were critical of this and upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• bring this issue to the attention of staff involved and all other relevant staff and ensure that where IV fluid is considered to be required for a patient it is recorded and commenced without delay; and
• issue a written apology to Mr C for failing to ensure that Ms A was adequately hydrated.

Summary

Ms C complained about the care and treatment that her late father (Mr A) received in hospital before his death. She said that staff failed to recognise and manage her father's pain and to act on her concerns about this. During our investigation, we took independent advice from one of our medical advisers. We found that there was no evidence in Mr A's medical records to suggest that he was in pain, and there was evidence that staff had recognised and acted on Mr A's agitation.

Ms C also said that Mr A was left sitting in a chair that he could not get out of unaided. Although our investigation found that the times that Mr A was in the chair were not recorded, our adviser said that it was reasonable for staff to get him out of bed, as moving and being in an upright position would have helped to prevent complications such as chest infections and venous thrombosis (a blood clot forming in a vein).

Finally, Ms C complained that a junior doctor did not pass on or discuss her concerns with senior colleagues and that she had difficulty in being able to speak to senior doctors. We did not find any evidence that this was the case. However, we did find that staff did not make it sufficiently clear that Mr A was dying before he was discharged from the hospital. We also upheld Ms A's complaint that staff delayed in responding when Mr A's family and carer used the assistance buzzer.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• consider whether they should provide training to staff on giving difficult messages / bad news to patients and families; and
• provide confirmation that the nurse call system is now set at a volume that nursing staff can clearly hear.