Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C is a recreational deer stalker using land owned by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). He complained that the FCS refused him permission to use a pistol for the humane dispatch of wounded deer, despite this being a recognised method of humane dispatch. Mr C considered that the FCS’s refusal to allow the use of pistols placed him, and others, at risk. He raised his concerns with the FCS, then complained to us that they refused to answer relevant questions or to produce documentation that they referred to in defence of their position on pistols.

The FCS’s policy was that the use of a rifle was the only acceptable means for recreational stalkers to cull deer. However, when explaining their policy to him, they referred him to guidance that was relevant to FCS staff and advocated the use of pistols and knives. That said, the FCS advised that their staff were not permitted to use pistols. They also referred Mr C to their firearms policy, which applies UK-wide and advocates the use of pistols to dispatch wounded deer under certain specific circumstances.

We found nothing in any of the legislation or guidance that we reviewed that required the FCS to permit the use of pistols for the humane dispatch of deer. As such, we considered that the FCS had the discretion to decide not to allow the use of pistols on their land. We were satisfied that their policy in this regard was not unreasonable and that they had given due consideration to Mr C's request that he be allowed to use a pistol. That said, we found that the information provided by the FCS when communicating their policy was confusing, not relevant to recreational stalkers, and not specific to Scotland. We made similar findings in relation to their risk assessment for the humane dispatch of deer.

We were critical of the FCS's handling of Mr C's enquiries and complaint. We found that the information provided to him was confusing and that his specific questions were not answered directly. We acknowledged that the FCS had already accepted and apologised for this. Mr C's complaint escalated to the appeal stage. However, we found that there was no scope for the original decision to be challenged at that stage.

Recommendations

We recommended that FCS:

• create guidance for the humane dispatch of wounded deer that is relevant to recreational stalkers in Scotland and sets out FCS policy on the firearms that may be used;
• create a generic risk assessment for the humane dispatch of wounded deer that is relevant to recreational stalkers in Scotland and is consistent with the FCS policy of not permitting the use of pistols;
• arrange for Mr C and his syndicate members to attend a practical demonstration and discussion on the dispatch of wounded deer in line with FCS policy;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to properly consider his complaint appeal; and
• consider reviewing their complaints handling procedure to ensure that it allows for decisions to be properly reviewed upon appeal.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council would not provide a suitable alternative to the National Entitlement Card in order for him to access the travel concession he was entitled to. Mr C had objections to the nature of the National Entitlement Card, which he described as an identity card. He sent the card back to the council on two different occasions requesting that an alternative, single use for travel card be made available. However, the council did not provide this. Mr C subsequently submitted a formal complaint, and thereafter complained to us about the way the council had handled his complaint.

We did not uphold the complaint that the council failed to respond appropriately to Mr C's request for an alternative card. We noted the scheme was nationally run and managed and it was not for the council to provide alternative versions of access to travel concession. We found evidence that they had contacted the national office to seek advice about Mr C's request. We did, however, note that the council could have told Mr C they had done this, which would have given him more confidence in the process.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's complaints handling. We found this to be poor in a number of ways, including the fact that two of their responses did not reach Mr C, that Mr C had to contact the council to chase up responses, and that some parts of the responses suggested that they had misunderstood the complaints. We noted the council had committed to complying with the new model complaints handling procedure being implemented by the SPSO's Complaints Standards Authority in early 2013.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• issue Mr C with a full apology for the failings identified in relation to the handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A, whose mother (Mrs A) required permanent residential care. The council had assessed Mrs A's finances and decided that she was able to fund her own care. Mr A complained to the council about their handling of the financial assessment and, dissatisfied with their response, took the matter to a social work complaints review committee (CRC). Based on the evidence submitted to them, the CRC ruled that Mrs A should be self-funding. Mr C complained that the information the council submitted to the CRC was incomplete and misleading. Furthermore, he did not consider that there was any evidence that the CRC took into account relevant guidance and legislation when reaching their decision. Mr C also raised concerns about the information that was made available to Mr A before and after the CRC hearing, and that the CRC chairman failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

Our investigation found that the information provided to Mr A before and after the CRC hearing was complete and in line with the published CRC procedure. The council's submission to the CRC referred to the relevant guidance and legislation, but we noted that it misquoted a key part of the legislation and paraphrased other sections without providing a full copy of them. Although we recognised that it was for the council to submit information in support of their position on the case, we found no evidence of the CRC having scrutinised the evidence submitted to them or having sought out copies of the guidance and legislation. We considered their report to be poor in that it did not give any detail of the reasoning behind their decision. We felt this was important as the report was to be passed to the relevant council committe for consideration of the recommendations being proposed by the CRC. We found that the chairman had known Mr A's wife in the past. We accepted, however, that there was no way that he could have identified this potential conflict of interest before the hearing, and there was no suggestion that he did not carry out his duties impartially. However, we considered that he could, and should, have made this known on the day to ensure transparency.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• arrange for Mrs A's case to be reconsidered by a CRC, with specific consideration given to the legitimacy of the department's decision in terms of relevant legislation and guidance;
• take steps to ensure CRCs record the reasoning behind their decisions; and
• remind CRC panel members that they should declare any potential conflicts of interest.

Summary

The council granted planning permission for a supermarket development opposite Mrs C's home. She was opposed to the development and had submitted objections during the planning application process. Her objections included concerns about the proposed development's impact on her ability to safely enter and exit her driveway, which is situated on a bend in the road, opposite the supermarket's access junction.

Mrs C became aware that a transport assessment had been undertaken in relation to the development. On looking into this, Mrs C became concerned and complained that the council's actions in relation to this assessment contributed to what she considered to be an unsafe road layout. She said that the council allowed the developer to conduct traffic surveys at times when traffic was diverted away from the road being assessed. She felt the council accepted a substandard traffic assessment and approved the planning application without question and then failed to ensure that certain planning conditions were met. She also complained about the council's handling of her correspondence about this.

We did not uphold most of Mrs C's complaints. The evidence that we examined in our investigation showed that no diversions were in place when the traffic surveys were carried out, and that the council had in fact considered the developer's traffic assessment to be substandard. They sought appropriate technical advice and worked with their adviser to ensure that amendments were made before planning consent was approved. We were satisfied that the council did not simply accept the proposals submitted by the developer, and we found that any outstanding issues were incorporated into conditions attached to the planning consent. That said, we found the council's record-keeping around this to be poor.

We found the council's actions on the two planning conditions that Mrs C felt had not been met to be reasonable. In one case, the council had not acted on a recommendation from their technical advisers to reword the condition, but we were satisfied that the action that they took reflected national guidance. We were, however, critical of the council's complaints handling and upheld Mrs C's complaints about this. The council had not shared with her the evidence that they presented to us, which clearly explained and supported the council's actions on the transport assessment. As such, complaints that could have been resolved quickly were allowed to carry on with no detailed explanation of the council's approach.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider introducing a system to maintain clear records of issues that have been identified, the action proposed to address them, and the date and reasons for the council's decision in response to each proposed action; and
• take steps to ensure that staff responding to complaints do so in sufficient detail to explain the reasons behind the council's position.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably issued him with a parking ticket. He said that there was a long-term agreement between local residents and the council that allowed residents to park on occasions when loading and unloading of cars was required. He also complained about the way the council dealt with his appeal and subsequent complaint. The council were of the view that no agreement existed and that residents were obliged to comply with the terms of the relevant road traffic order.

We were not provided with evidence of any agreement existing between the council and residents. Our investigation, therefore, found that the council acted reasonably by interpreting the road traffic order in the way they did, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints that they acted unreasonably in this respect. However, we did find that the council failed to clearly separate the appeals and complaints processes and failed to respond to Mr C's concerns that the appeals process was in breach of article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention. As a result we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• contact Mr C to clarify his concerns about the compliance of the appeals process with human rights legislation, consider his comments, and then respond to him in writing; and
• carry out a review of their handling of this case with a view to establishing whether further guidance needs to be provided to staff to ensure appropriate separation between the appeals and complaints processes in future, and notify the Ombudsman of their findings.

Summary

Ms C, who is a planning consultant, submitted a complaint on behalf of her client (Mrs A). In 2008, Mrs A had obtained planning consent for an extension to her cottage, but did not take this forward. In May 2010, she placed a large residential caravan with wooden decking beside the cottage. The caravan was connected to Mrs A's electricity, water and sewerage facilities and Mrs A’s mother moved into it.

A neighbour objected to this, and a council enforcement officer investigated. They invited Mrs A to apply for retrospective planning consent for the caravan. When she did so, however, the committee who considered her application refused permission, and the council served an enforcement notice for the caravan to be removed. Mrs A appealed this to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The appeal was unsuccessful but after Mrs A succeeded in challenging this at the Court of Session, DPEA again considered the matter. However, they again dismissed the appeals, giving Mrs A six months to comply with the enforcement notice.

Ms C made four complaints to us. She said the council had been unreasonable in refusing her offer to meet with them and engage in pre-application discussions, or to address her concerns about the relevance of a certificate of lawfulness of a proposed use or development. Ms C was also unhappy that the council delayed in handling her complaints. We upheld only one of her complaints, however, about complaints handling. This was because we found that the council in general acted appropriately in the action they took, and were entitled to make the decisions they had made.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise and provide an explanation for the delay in dealing with Ms C's third stage complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's husband collapsed at home and an emergency ambulance was called. Although Mrs C lives near an ambulance station and a hospital, the ambulance sent was not the nearest one at the time, and there was a delay before it arrived. Mrs C's husband later died from a heart attack. The service explained to her that the nearest ambulance was already involved with a patient, and so the next available vehicle was despatched. Mrs C complained to us that the service had not conducted a thorough investigation into what had happened, and that, after she complained to them, it was five months before she received a final response.

Our investigation found that the service had completed a thorough investigation, so we did not uphold that complaint. We did, however, uphold her complaint about the complaints handling, as the board had not sent her regular updates on the progress of the investigation or told her that she could contact us, when the response to her complaint was delayed. We also established that they incorrectly told Mrs C that the investigation was nearing completion, when in fact it had been concluded.

Recommendations

We recommended that the service:

• conduct a review into the time taken to respond to formal complaints; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the time taken to respond to her complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the board failed to provide her with appropriate care and treatment when she attended a hospital accident and emergency department (A&E). Mrs C said she had gone to hospital a number of weeks after injuring her ankle. She said she was told that she had a bad sprain, but that she did not need an x-ray as the pain would ease itself. A week later Mrs C went back to hospital in severe pain. A number of x-rays were taken and she was told that her foot was fractured. Mrs C complained that the staff nurse who dealt with her on her first visit to hospital did not check on her while she was waiting and treated her with contempt, as if she should not have been there.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from a medical adviser. He explained that the treatment Mrs C received when she first went to A&E was appropriate, and in accordance with internationally validated and recognised clinical guidelines. He said it was clearly recorded that there was no evidence of bone pain and that Mrs C was able to put weight on her foot. He explained that the absence of bone pain suggested that an x-ray was not required. We did not, therefore, uphold Mrs C's complaint about her care and treatment.

On the matter of the nurse’s conduct, although the board said they had discussed this with her during their investigation of the complaint, they had not recorded what was said, and had taken no statement from her. In response to our enquiries, they obtained an account from the nurse in which they said she accepted that her conduct towards Mrs C had been inappropriate. Although it would have been more appropriate for a statement to have been taken at the time rather than eleven months later, we upheld this element of Mrs C's complaint, as the evidence supported her view that the nurse did not deal with her appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs C for the staff nurse’s conduct towards her; and
• provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the change to their procedure for investigation of complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the care and treatment he received at a hospital. Mr A had attended the hospital's accident and emergency department (A&E), complaining of dehydration, frequent urination, vomiting and lack of energy. Mr A had also said that his eyesight was blurry and he had a dry mouth. After tests, Mr A was diagnosed with a virus and a low salt count, and discharged. Two days later, Mr A became ill during a journey and was taken to hospital where he was immediately diagnosed as having type 1 diabetes. He was in hospital for about a week. Mr C complained that Mr A was not properly diagnosed during his initial hospital visit.

Our investigation took account of all the available information, including the complaints correspondence and Mr A's medical records. We also obtained independent medical advice. We found that not all the tests that should have been carried out were carried out. This meant that Mr A's condition was not properly diagnosed and he was discharged from A&E too early. Our investigations also showed that the board had not addressed all the complaints Mr C put to them on behalf of Mr A.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr A for their failure to carry out appropriate diagnostic testing;
• apologise for failing to correctly diagnose Mr A and for discharging him prematurely;
• confirm that the GP specialist trainee raised this case as a significant event at her appraisal;
• confirm to the Ombudsman that they are satisfied that the systems failure that allowed a patient to be discharged from A&E before test results were reviewed has been remedied;
• apologise to Mr C and Mr A for failing to admit when responding to the complaint that there had been faults with regard to Mr A's care and treatment; and
• apologise for their failure to respond to the complaint about the way in which Mr A was spoken to.

Summary

When Mr and Ms C's young daughter became ill, they took her to their medical practice. She was examined by a GP, who said that she was suffering from a yeast infection and nappy rash. Later that day Mr and Ms C's daughter’s condition deteriorated and she was taken to hospital, where she was diagnosed with scarlet fever. Mr and Ms C complained to the practice that the GP did not diagnose their daughter correctly. The practice responded but Mr and Ms C felt that the response was inaccurate and did not deal with the complaint.

As part of our investigation, we took independent advice from a medical adviser. He explained that the diagnosis of scarlet fever is rare, and that there was evidence that the GP had taken appropriate steps to diagnose Mr and Mrs C's daughter's condition. Taking this into account we did not uphold the complaint.

When investigating the complaint about the practice's complaints handling, we looked at the practice's complaints procedure and response. We found that the practice had not followed their complaints process. We also found that the GP had not written detailed medical notes which meant that the practice's response was incomplete. We, therefore, upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• ensure that all relevant members of staff reacquaint themselves with the practice complaints procedure and ensure that they follow it; and
• ensure that the GP concerned is aware of the General Medical Council guidance on record-keeping.