Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council dealt with a planning application for a proposed development of social housing near his home. He felt the council had not consulted with the community appropriately, had failed to take into account objections properly, and had not given reasonable justification for the choice of site.

We found that the council dealt with the application appropriately and in accordance with planning policy. The planning report about the site had considered all objections and provided reasoned responses. We noted there had been an initial error with the documentation provided during neighbour notification, but that this had been rectified. In any event the council had given reasonable opportunity for representations to be made and heard during consultation events and during a planning committee meeting. We also found that, although the council were not required to justify choosing this specific site over others, they had nonetheless provided their reasoning for this choice of site to the community. We also did not uphold the complaint that construction started before planning condition pre-requisites were met, as we found evidence to the contrary. We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the council handled his complaints, as we found the final response was unreasonably delayed and did not address any of the points on which Mr C had sought responses.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the manner in which they dealt with his complaint; and
• review their complaints handling procedure to ensure full responses are sent to complainants.

Summary

Mr C lived in an old building, which was in a state of disrepair. He and other owners sought the assistance of a local councillor, who arranged for the owners to meet with council officers. The owners initially instructed a firm of surveyors whose report specified the extent of disrepair. With changes in the funding of private sector repairs taking effect from 1 April 2010, the owners agreed with the officers' proposal that the council serve a notice under section 108 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. This would entitle owners to a minimum grant of 50 percent of eligible costs (less recording fee), with the possibility of a higher percentage based on an assessment of income over the previous 52 weeks. Applications would require to be submitted and approved by 31 March 2010. The notice was served in August 2009.

In January 2010, Mr C applied for a grant, and declared that his then partner was resident. The council asked for her income details and Mr C supplied them in mid-February. It turned out that Mr C's partner's income had been such that Mr C's application would attract only the minimum (50 percent) grant. While the application for the grant was still under consideration, Mr C's partner left the household. Mr C told a council grant officer about this when they visited him in late March. Mr C was awarded the minimum 50 percent grant (less recording fee).

Mr C was unhappy, as he felt that with his partner no longer resident, the application should only take his income into account, leading to a higher percentage of grant being awarded to him. Mr C's complaint to us had four aspects: that the council failed to provide him with clarity on his entitlement to repairs grants and how these are calculated; delayed, failed to communicate, and were inefficient in the re-assessment of his grant application; failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedures; and failed to follow through with their requirement to ensure that plans were in place to adequately maintain the building in future.

We did not uphold the first two complaints. Our investigation found that the council provided adequate general information, and that the assessment takes into account the personal income of those declared to be resident over the year immediately before the date of application. Partners were included in the assessment, as the advice assumed that if two people live together as partners they have a shared interest in the condition of their property and should be assessed at the date of application. We, therefore, did not find that the council had done anything wrong in taking Mr C's former partner's income into account. We did find that the council failed to respond at one stage of their complaint procedure or to pursue with owners a proactive five year maintenance plan. We upheld these complaints and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the information it gives to those seeking financial assistance in respect of private sector repairs; and
• follow up on a particular letter and take any requisite action in reminding owners of the building of action that they expect from them.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C left their dogs at a kennels for two and a half weeks. When they collected the dogs they found that one of them was in poor physical condition, and later had to be put to sleep. The kennels were privately owned, and were subject to an annual licence issued by the council. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels within a reasonable timescale that would allow a prosecution. They said that the council failed to regulate the kennels appropriately and to adequately carry out their duties in terms of relevant animal welfare legislation. In addition, Mr and Mrs C complained that the council did not deal adequately with their complaint about the council’s handling of the matter.

We upheld one of Mr and Mrs C’s complaints - that the council failed to adequately deal with their complaints about the kennels. We found from looking at the evidence that Mr and Mrs C’s concerns were taken seriously, their anecdotal evidence was recorded and considered, and was weighed against evidence that the council obtained from the vets who looked after their dog. However, we found that the council did not interview the licensee when investigating the complaint. Although the council told us that they did not have a duty to interview the licensee and would only do so if the conditions of the license appeared to have been breached, there seemed to be differing views about this in the council, and we made a recommendation to address this.

We did not see sufficient evidence that the council explained their responsibilities to Mr and Mrs C; specifically that the council had to ensure the kennels were complying with the conditions of their license, and that information gathered had been compared against the licence conditions. We also found that the council's further consideration of Mr and Mrs C’s complaint did not involve any new investigation of the matters they had raised. We took the view that Mr and Mrs C should have been told sooner that there was no appeal procedure, and directed to the corporate complaints procedure if they wished to complain about the council’s handling of the matter, as they later did.

In terms of the complaints that we did not uphold, we found that it was for the council to decide whether to refer a matter for possible prosecution. The council decided in reasonable time that there was insufficient evidence and so did not refer this case. We also found that animal health and welfare legislation did not require the council to inspect kennels; rather, it gave them the power to do so if appropriate. The conditions of the license issued to the kennels replicated the conditions stated in the legislation. We did not see evidence that the council failed to regulate the kennels appropriately or to adequately carry out their duties in terms of relevant animal welfare legislation. However, given what the council told us about differences between their role and that of an animal welfare charity in relation to complaints of alleged ill treatment and neglect of animals, we were of the view that the council should take steps to avoid any confusion about this in future.

Finally, we found that although the council did not reach a conclusion that satisfied Mr and Mrs C, the steps they took to investigate the complaint about the handling of the matter were adequate, and the response provided a detailed explanation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• that the council apologise for failing to adequately deal with complaints about the kennels;
• that the council ask the service to document the recognised procedure for dealing with complaints about licensed premises. This document should make clear that licensees should be interviewed at the earliest opportunity. It should also make clear why there is no appeal against decisions made, and that complainants should be signposted to the corporate complaints procedure if they are not satisfied with how their complaint about licensed premises has been handled; and
• that the council should explain to members of the public how their role is different from that of the SSPCA, and should appropriately signpost members of the public with concerns about animal welfare in boarding establishments to the SSPCA at the earliest opportunity.

Summary

Ms C lives in a block of four flats managed by the association. She and other tenants raised a number of complaints about the level of sound insulation between upper and lower properties. Although Ms C had raised concerns about the sound insulation since the properties were built in 2007, she told us that it took four years before any action was taken. The association agreed to lay an additional soundproofing layer between the properties, but Ms C complained that this was ineffective as it was laid incorrectly. After pursuing her complaint with the association's management committee, Ms C found that, although they accepted that noise levels were excessive, they would not spend the money required to resolve the situation.

We found that the association took too long to begin investigations into the cause of the poor sound insulation. Once these started, they were actively progressed, but we found that the association took too long to address the problem. We were, however, satisfied that the association listened to Ms C's complaints that the new sound-proof flooring was laid incorrectly. They were able to demonstrate that it had been laid in line with the manufacturer's guidelines. We found no evidence to suggest that their management committee found the noise levels at the flat to be excessive and were satisfied that they only decided not to carry out further remedial works after carefully considering a range of relevant information from a number of sources.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that, after an appeal panel hearing, the association's director failed to comply with the chairman's request to meet with tenants to discuss what other options might exist to help improve or solve the matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for the failures identified by our investigation.

Summary

Mrs C said she had applied to the association for permission to erect a suitable shelter or shed for her mobility scooter and later decided that a shed would be more suitable. She said that all the sites the association suggested were not suitable. The association, however, said that her preferred location was not possible as there was a communal access path leading to the rear of the terrace of houses at that point. Mrs C was also unhappy about the outcome of a tenants' meeting held by the association to discuss the matter of private rear gardens. She also said the association had ignored their own complaints process in dealing with her complaint and delayed in responding to her.

We found that the association had properly considered all the circumstances and Mrs C's views on the location of the shed and put forward two options that they considered would satisfy both Mrs C and all their current and future tenants. With reference to the tenants' meeting we found that the association had acted correctly in this matter. During our consideration of Mrs C's complaint the association acknowledged that they had not fully complied with their complaints policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about the location of the shed or the outcome of the tenants' meeting but did uphold her complaint about the way the association had dealt with her complaint to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for their failure to deal with the complaint in line with their complaints policy.

Summary

Ms C fell while away from home and fractured her wrist. At the time she was 70 years old with a history of osteoarthritis (a common form of arthritis causing chronic breakdown of cartilage in the joints). She had a cast applied to her wrist. On returning home, she was seen at a hospital. As the bones had not lined up properly, she had an operation to correct this using a fixator (a device to fix the position of fractured bones). Ms C was unhappy when the fixator was removed, as she was told that the bones were still out of alignment and she would not regain the full function of her wrist and fingers. She questioned whether the bones had been correctly aligned before the fixator was fitted. She further complained that the anaesthesia (pain relief) given to her failed to work and that she experienced a great deal of pain. She said that the operation had not been properly explained to her and that the board had taken too long to deal with her complaint.

We investigated the complaint taking into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence, relevant clinical notes and x-rays. We also obtained advice from our medical adviser, who reviewed Ms C's notes and the care and treatment she received. He said that her treatment was entirely appropriate and satisfactory. He said that sometimes anaesthesia could be imperfect, but that this did not necessarily indicate any failure by the doctors. He said that her pain was managed in accordance with accepted practice. The adviser also took the view that the board's explanations to Ms C about her operation were appropriate and reasonable.

Taking all these factors into account, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints about her care and treatment. However, there was evidence to suggest that the board took too long to deal with her complaints on these matters.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay in responding to her complaint; and
• remind their staff of the importance of adhering to their stated complaints handling timescales and process.

Summary

Mr C complained that there were several errors in a letter that a doctor sent to his GP after he attended a clinic about his stomach problems. He said that this showed the doctor had not paid attention to him during the consultation. We obtained the doctor’s notes of the consultation and asked for his comments on the matter. The doctor said that he believed that the notes he took and the letter he dictated following the consultation with Mr C were accurate. Our investigation did not find any evidence to support Mr C’s complaint that there were errors in the letter.

Mr C also said that the doctor sent the letter to the wrong medical practice. Our investigation found that the letter had been sent to the correct practice and did not uphold this part of Mr C’s complaint. However, we found that when Mr C complained to the doctor about the letter, the doctor sent the complaint to Mr C’s practice, but did not respond to it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• write to Mr C to apologise for the doctor's failure to respond to his complaint.

Summary

An advocacy worker (Ms C) complained on behalf of Mrs A, whose husband (Mr A) had been treated by the board. Mr A had become ill in October 2010, and his GP prescribed antibiotics for a presumed chest infection. Mrs A became concerned about his condition later the same day, however, and believed that her husband was having a stroke. Mr A attended the accident and emergency department of a hospital and was admitted. Records show that Mr A was found to be confused, with slurred speech and impaired mobility, but investigations found that he had not had a stroke and did not have an infection. No confirmed cause was established for his confusion, and he was discharged with a suspected Transient Ischaemic Attack (a type of stroke, sometimes called a mini stroke, that shows no evidence on CT scans but resolves in around 24 hours).

Mrs A complained that Mr A was discharged home whilst still very confused. She questioned the level of investigation into his condition. She also said that her husband had been diagnosed with lung cancer six months after his hospital admission and asked whether this should have been diagnosed at the time.

After taking advice from our medical adviser, we upheld two of Mrs A's complaints. We found that staff thoroughly investigated the cause of Mr A's confusion and reached appropriate conclusions. A chest x-ray taken during his admission did show an abnormality that was suspicious of, but not diagnostic of, cancer. We noted that the radiologist's report recommended investigation of this once Mr A's condition improved, but found no evidence of follow-up arrangements being made or of Mr A and his family being told of the finding.

We were unable to comment as to the extent of Mr A's confusion when he was discharged home, as when he was admitted the board failed to obtain detailed information from Mrs A about his usual state. However, we noted that a care plan and discharge plan were completed stating that arrangements had been made to provide Mr A with support at home, but found no evidence of the described actions having been taken. There was also a lack of evidence of staff discussing discharge arrangements with Mrs A. As such, we were left with doubts as to whether it was appropriate to discharge Mr A.

We did not uphold Mrs A's complaint that the board failed to provide a follow-up appointment for her husband, as we could not find evidence to show that this should have happened.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs A for the issues highlighted in our decision;
• draw Mr A's case to their staff's attention to ensure that discharge arrangements are properly followed up and documented and that patients' families are routinely consulted about their perceptions of the need for support at the time of discharge; and
• consider carrying out an audit of actions that are actually undertaken in the discharge planning process against the benchmark of their discharge planning documentation.

Summary

Mrs C became pregnant at the age of 40. Her pregnancy appeared to progress well, but at just over 37 weeks it was discovered that her baby had died. Mrs C’s baby was stillborn the following day. Mrs C made a number of complaints about the care that she, her baby and her husband received both during and following her pregnancy.

Mrs C was concerned that she had been placed on a midwifery led care pathway. Having taken advice on this from our medical advisers, we found that this was appropriate, as she had no apparent risk factors. Her age was taken into account appropriately, with an extra appointment for a fetal growth scan (a scan to detemine the growth and health of the baby) with an obstetrician at 12 weeks. We also found that Mrs C’s care complied with the governmental guidelines 'Pathways for Maternity Care' and did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C also complained that the systems of routine scans and antenatal checks did not provide enough care to mothers and babies. She was concerned, in particular, that no further midwifery appointments were offered after 35 weeks, and that additional checks were not carried out on her. We found, however, that the care in place was appropriate, that Mrs C had had a suitable number of midwifery appointments at the appropriate stages throughout her pregnancy, and that a balance had to be struck between positive elements of providing reassurance and detecting disease for which there is an intervention, and negative elements of creating anxiety and possibly unnecessary early delivery. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mrs C said that the postnatal care offered to her and Mr C was inadequate and did not offer enough support for their bereavement. We found that, although the postnatal care by the midwives was adequate, Mrs C was not contacted by a health visitor. The board said that a health visitor would not visit in the event of a stillbirth, but the advice we received indicated that contact would have been appropriate. We upheld this complaint and recommended the board reconsider their policy in this regard.

Mrs C also complained that the information offered by the board about loss in pregnancy was inadequate. We did not uphold this complaint as we found the information offered by the board through parentcraft classes was proportionate and appropriate.

Finally, Mrs C complained that the board did not fully address some of the issues she raised with them. We upheld this complaint as we found a number of errors in the information the board gave Mrs C throughout their correspondence with her. There was also an unnecessary delay in providing the results of a second opinion post-mortem report that Mr and Mrs C had requested.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• provide us with evidence that they have reviewed their policy and clarified the role of health visitors in the event of stillbirth and neo-natal death, to ensure sufficient information is communicated effectively during the midwifery discharge process;
• provide Mrs C with a copy of the second opinion post-mortem report and offer her an appointment to discuss the findings; and
• provide Mr and Mrs C with a full apology for the failings identified.

Summary

After Mrs A had a knee replacement operation she was discharged home into the care of the district nursing service (district nurses visit and treat patients at home). Her daughter (Mrs C) complained about the care Mrs A then received - in particular, that two clips were not removed. Mrs C said that this caused her mother to suffer an infection, and that this was not properly treated in that on one occasion, dressings were not available. She also said that Mrs A was not provided with antibiotics quickly enough. Mrs C considered that her mother suffered unnecessarily because of this, and lost mobility and independence.

We investigated the complaint and took advice from our nursing adviser. We found that, contrary to what Mrs C thought, wound clips are not normally counted as they are put in and taken out, and are generally obvious. Although two clips were left in Mrs A's knee for a short time, the adviser could not conclude that this led to the infection. However, the adviser also said that the notes taken at visits were not of good quality and that not all actions taken were noted. Nevertheless, the records suggested that there was no delay in giving Mrs A appropriate antibiotics. Although it was regrettable that Mrs A contacted an infection, we could not determine with certainty that this was as a result of a lack of care. We did, however, uphold Mrs C's complaint that on one occasion the wound was not dressed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• emphasise to all district nursing staff the importance of adhering to the Nursing and Midwifery Council 2009 Guidelines 'Record keeping