Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr A's late wife (Mrs A) was in hospital, and had developed symptoms that suggested she might be infected with legionella (the bacterium that causes legionnaire's disease). Blood tests were taken, but Mrs A died the next day, before the results were known. The hospital issued a death certificate and Mr A organised his wife's funeral. However, when the undertaker tried to collect Mrs A's body the day before the funeral, the hospital would not release it. This was because the legionella tests had come back positive and the procurator fiscal had been informed. Mr A was left not knowing when he would be able to hold his wife's funeral, and said that he did not receive a clear explanation of the reasons for the delay or what would happen if the tests were positive. Because of the delay, the family had to cancel the funeral which both caused extreme distress and inconvenienced them, as family members were travelling from other parts of the UK.

The further tests, however, showed that the first result had been a 'false positive' and Mrs A did not have a legionella infection. An advocacy worker (Ms C) complained to us on Mr A's behalf about the board's administration and communication. She said that the board had issued the death certificate prematurely and delayed in deciding not to release Mrs A's body. She also said that their communication was unreasonable in that they delayed in telling the appropriate people that Mrs A's body was not to be released, provided an inadequate reason for not releasing Mrs A's body, and failed to provide reasonable information about what would happen if the test results were positive or about when Mrs A's body would be released.

We did not uphold the complaint that the board's administration of matters was unreasonable, as we found no evidence of delay in deciding to release Mrs A's body. Our investigation found that the decisions about this were taken as quickly as they could have been. We also found that it was reasonable for them to issue a death certificate, as the main causes of death were appropriately recorded.

However, we did uphold the complaint that the board's communication was unreasonable. Although a doctor had contacted Mr A at the right time to explain why Mrs A's body could not be released, we found no evidence that the doctor explained to him the implications of a positive test result. Although we acknowledged that normally the chance of a positive test was small, we found that Mr A and his family should have been told of the possible implications in order that they could make informed choices about important matters such as funeral arrangements.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• take steps to ensure that, where similar circumstances arise, medical staff make relatives aware of the potential impact of a positive test result.

Summary

Mr C complained that his medical practice failed to provide appropriate care and treatment when he had an eye infection and unreasonably refused to allow him to see a GP.

Mr C developed an eye infection, and called his practice on a Friday to request an appointment. He was told that there were no appointments available and that he should call again on Monday. By Monday his eyes had not improved, and he contacted NHS 24 (a national phone helpline service for advice on health matters). They advised him to see his GP. His workplace occupational health team also advised him not to work, and to see his GP. When Mr C contacted the practice again, he was told that when he first called he should have been referred to the LENS service (a service set up by the regional NHS board, providing direct access to treatment for minor eye conditions). The receptionist he spoke to on this occasion apologised that he was not told this when he first called, and advised him to contact a local optician, a participant in the LENS scheme.

Mr C was treated with various eye drops but his condition was slow to resolve. He contacted the practice several times over the next two weeks asking to see a GP. Although he twice saw a nurse from the practice, he was never able to see a GP. As he was unable to see a GP, Mr C continued with the treatment provided by the LENS service and was discharged the next month with the infection resolved.

Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a medical adviser, concluded that it was reasonable that Mr C should have been referred to and treated by the LENS service. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint about his initial treatment. The adviser said that the care and treatment provided by the service was reasonable and appropriate, and would not have been different from the treatment provided by a GP. However, we did find that when his condition was slow to resolve, it was unreasonable that Mr C was not given the opportunity to discuss his condition with a GP and be reassured that the treatment being provided by the LENS service was appropriate. Because of this, we upheld his complaint that he was refused access to a GP during that time.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• apologise for the failings identified; and
• review their policy and procedures for the allocation of GP appointments where patients have been referred to another service, and ensure that staff are considerate of the possible need for the reassurance provided by discussion with a GP when a condition is not resolving within a reasonable time.

Summary

Miss C said that she experienced pain and difficulty eating after having her tooth filled. She was unhappy that, when she twice called the dental practice about the pain she was suffering, reception staff advised her to call the emergency dentist.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint about her dental treatment. We could not find enough evidence to support what Miss C said about the phone calls she said she made to the dental practice after the treatment, or what was discussed with the reception staff. We noted that when Miss C visited a different dentist a few months later, the filling was removed and a small exposure of the pulp tissue was found (the pulp is the central soft core of the tooth, sometimes referred to as the nerve). Our dental adviser said that exposure of the pulp is relatively common when providing a deep filling and can often go undetected as it can be fractions of a millimetre in size. In Miss C's case, our adviser said that it was possible that a small exposure occurred following the tooth being filled but did not consider that the the treatment was inappropriate.

We did, however, uphold Miss C's complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the board had not provided a full and comprehensive response to her complaint. We noted that the board's feedback services are currently under review.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Ms C for not responding fully to her complaint; and
• update the Ombudsman when the Feedback Service review is completed.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his son (Mr A) who has Asperger's (a form of autism, in which people may find difficulty in social relationships and in communicating), that university staff had not been made sufficiently aware of his needs as a disabled student. Mr C told us that his son's disability was 'hidden', in that his condition was not obvious to those who met him. We agreed that there were some shortcomings in relation to Mr A's individual learning plan (ILP) which was not regularly updated or reviewed according to the university's policy.

We did not find evidence to support Mr C's complaints that requests for additional clinical support and for a change of supervisor had been unreasonably refused. However, Mr C also complained that his son was invited to a meeting without making its purpose clear in advance, and without inviting him to bring along a supporter or advocate. We agreed that Mr A should have been invited to bring somebody with him, particularly as his ILP identified that in difficult situations he was prone to anxiety which could overwhelm him. We also found the outcomes of meetings between the university and Mr A were not adequately recorded. This was particularly important as he had an identified need to record and confirm verbal discussions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the university:

• arrange for a programme of staff training to raise awareness of hidden disabilities and their impacts;
• review the procedures related to the review and updating of individual learning plans (ILPs);
• make greater use of notes to record discussions, issues, changes, decisions and update ILPs, and copy for any student with any additional support needs;
• ensure that staff pay greater attention to the detail of the ILP when dealing with students with additional support needs; and
• use email to confirm arrangements for students with additional support needs arising from hidden disabilities.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream failed to read his meter between April 2011 and January 2012. He said that, had they done so, it would have been evident that a large amount of water was passing through the meter, indicating a leak. A leak was eventually identified, but not before Mr C received a sizeable water bill. Business Stream advised Mr C that he should read the meter himself to ensure that his readings were accurate. However, he did not feel comfortable doing so, as the meter was located next to a busy road.

We upheld the complaints about failure to read the meter, and about complaints handling. Our investigation found that Business Stream should have carried out two actual meter readings during the period in question. One of the readings for Mr C's meter was estimated, so we concluded that it might have been possible for the leak to have been identified earlier. That said, it was also possible that the leak occurred after the time the meter should have been read. We found that Mr C's meter was relocated next to the road after meter readers complained that it was contaminated in its former location (a yard inhabited by cows). We were, however, satisfied that, after Mr C raised safety concerns, Business Stream moved it to a safer location. We were critical of Business Stream for failing to provide a detailed response to Mr C's formal complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream Ltd:

• offer Mr C a credit to his account reflecting the potential impact of the failure to read his meter on his January 2012 water bill.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) handled his appeal against their decision to not accept a late application from his son for tuition fee support for his university course for 2011/2012. Mr C made four separate complaints about the SAAS handling of the matter.

The evidence we obtained during our investigation showed that the SAAS should have fully compared Mr C's initial letter of appeal and follow-up letter and had they done so, it would have become apparent that he was requesting a further appeal to the chief executive. Although there was evidence that the SAAS failed to recognise Mr C's further appeal, there was no evidence to support his view that the SAAS chief executive personally failed to follow the correct process, and we did not uphold this complaint.

We upheld his second complaint. The evidence showed that the SAAS acknowledged that they failed to deal with Mr C's stage three appeal letter correctly. It was clear that the same person dealt with Mr C's stage two and three appeals, contrary to the requirement of the procedure. On the third complaint, the evidence showed that in response to Mr C's stage three appeal letter the SAAS's compliance manager wrote a covering letter and sent this to Mr C along with a copy of his stage two response. There was no evidence that the compliance manager considered the additional information Mr C supplied in his stage three appeal letter and for this reason, we upheld this complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's fourth complaint. In response to our enquiry, the SAAS told us that they relied on the integrity of information provided by institutions, such as the university, when considering appeals. This appeared to include reliance on statements about actions that institutions said they had taken. In Mr C's case, the evidence obtained showed that the SAAS made statements in their stage two and three responses for which they did not have supporting documentary evidence. As well as requesting such statements, therefore, we considered it would be reasonable for the SAAS to require institutions to provide documentary evidence of the actions they claim to have taken, particularly where a complainant says that the actions did not take place and provides documentary evidence to suggest that this may be the case.

Recommendations

We recommended that SAAS:

• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to escalate his stage two appeal to the chief executive;
• provide SPSO with documentary evidence that the SAAS raised the failing with the staff involved;
• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to request full documentary evidence of the university's actions when dealing with Mr C's stage one and stage three responses which were not supported by appropriate evidence;
• take steps to obtain copies of the reminder emails sent by the university and then review their decision on Mr C's son's case, ensuring that the decision they reach is supported by appropriate documentary evidence; and
• put procedures in place to ensure that in future, staff obtain appropriate evidence when considering student appeals.

Summary

Mrs C and her neighbour live at opposite ends of a row of four cottages. The two middle properties are owned by a third party (Mr M) who operated one of the properties as a shop. Mr M applied for and was granted planning permission to extend the shop into the second of his properties. Mrs C and her neighbour then complained to the council about an ongoing issue with noise from internal and external air cooling units connected to the shop. Mrs C considered that planning consent should have been sought and required for the units.

We found that Mr M did not include details of the cooling units in his planning application and that the council could not, therefore, take a view that planning permission was required before consent for the shop development was granted. Following Mrs C's complaint, the council decided that planning permission was required for one of the units. However, they took no enforcement action to regularise the situation, as environmental services were still investigating complaints about the noise. We found it reasonable for the council to delay taking enforcement action on the planning merits of the units pending the outcome of the noise investigation, as this could have resulted in the units being changed or moved. We were also satisfied with the council's consideration of complaints about soundproofing between the cottages, but we were critical of a lack of record-keeping showing the reasoning behind their decisions.

Although we acknowledged that the process took some time, we found that there was clear evidence of continuous activity by the council in relation to Mrs C's complaints about noise over a period of one and a half years. We also found that they adhered to their own policies by taking a preventative approach and by supporting Mr M in trying to resolve the issue. We found that due to the nature of the work required, this process can, and often does, take a considerable period of time. Mrs C complained that the council did not act on its findings and progress to legal action but we found that the council acted on its findings throughout and moved to take legal action at an appropriate stage. Had they taken legal action sooner, they would have been in breach of their own policies and of government guidance in relation to the preferred preventative approach to resolving such issues.

We upheld Mrs C's final complaint that the council did not provide updates to her when they had agreed to do so. Although we did not consider it realistic for the council to report back on every single event, we found that when they agreed to provide an update and did not, this was not in keeping with their customer service strategy. The strategy says that they will keep their commitments to customers when providing services and tell them about the progress of the service requested.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider, when dealing with a complex service request, allocating a single point of contact to the complainant and agreeing at an early stage how and when updates and communications will be provided; and
• consider issuing a memo to all relevant staff to ensure they are aware that an abatement notice will become time barred from proceeding to legal action within six months of the date of first issue.
• 

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's processing of two planning applications in respect of the demolition of a property in a conservation area and the erection of a new home. Two applications were required due to separate consent being required under conservation area consent requirements.

We did not uphold her complaint that the processing was incorrect as the second application did not include information required by council guidance, because our investigation found the application did in fact include this information. We noted however that in their response, the council had not made this clear to Ms C.

We did uphold Ms C's complaint that the council did not respond properly to her complaints. That there were lengthy unexplained delays, and the final response failed to address an additional concern Ms C had raised. We also noted it was not reasonable that the report about the first application was not available on the council's online portal until eight days after the application was granted. We recognised this prevented members of the public having faith in the process.

We also noted some issues in relation to the way the two applications were handled; for example, the applications could have been handled alongside each other, as the process as it stood suggested one had pre-empted the other. In addition, there was some key wording missed out in error in the first application, which could potentially have been misleading and suggested the second application would not be required. We drew this to the council's attention and made three recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide Ms C with a full apology for not responding to her complaint timeously and for not fully addressing the concerns she raised;
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence to demonstrate that the council's internal complaints procedure is being complied with, including evidence that complainants are contacted to seek agreement for further time to respond if required; and
• review and improve procedures for planning applications which require separate conservation area applications to ensure a pragmatic approach and provide evidence of this review to the Ombudsman.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of an application for planning consent for a two storey extension to the house next door. They alleged that the council failed to handle the planning application appropriately. They said that the planning officer wrongly calculated the overall size of the house next door in assessing the extension; their objections were not appropriately taken into account, particularly with regard to overshadowing and light restriction to their windows; granting consent with a specific finish could only be achieved by the neighbours accessing their property; and the council failed to take into account the future difficulty of maintaining Mr and Mrs C's property.

As part of our investigation we obtained independent advice from one of our planning advisers. We found that an error had indeed been made in failing to consider the earliest of several previous extensions to the property next door, which resulted in the wrong baseline being used to compare percentages. This did not, however, in the view of the planning adviser imply that consent had wrongly been granted. In general, appropriate consideration had been given to the council's supplementary planning guidance notes. We did not uphold the three other complaints. We noted that the applicant, as he was entitled to do, applied for consent to construct the extension up to the boundary but the council had, in granting consent, omitted to include a condition relating to a particular finish. We, therefore, made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the error which occurred in this instance with a view to ensuring that in future the full relevant planning history of a property is assessed in respect of planning applications for domestic extension; and
• explore the reasons why, when the local plan guidance generally requires that the materials and finish of an extension match the existing house, such a condition was not applied to the consent on the application.
• 

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients about the way in which the council dealt with a neighbouring farmer's planning review application. He said that his clients were not given enough time to make their representations against the review, nor were their views, once made, taken into account. He also said that the review process was not adequately carried out nor were his clients' interests sufficiently protected . Finally, he complained that they were not told the outcome of the review which, in effect, deprived them of the right of appeal to the courts.

We investigated the complaint and obtained specialist planning advice. Our investigation found that most of the process was carried out in terms of the legislation, and we did not uphold three of the complaints. However, we found that although the council acted in accordance with the appropriate legislation with regard to notification they had not provided information on their website, as they said they had. On balance we decided to uphold the complaint about notification of the review. They also failed to officially tell Mr C's clients of the outcome of the review, which meant that his clients missed their opportunity to appeal, and we also upheld his complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that information on their website concerning local reviews is made clear;
• demonstrate that processes have been put in place to prevent a recurrence of the situation; and
• apologise formally to Mr C's clients.
•