Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that the board provided to her late brother (Mr A).

Mr A attended the emergency department at Forth Valley Royal Hospital. After performing an examination and taking blood tests, staff considered that he had gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach and intestines). Mr A returned the next day, and staff continued to feel he was suffering from a viral illness. Mr A was seen the following day by an out-of-hours GP. He was then admitted to the board's acute assessment unit, who performed a range of further tests. The tests were normal, and Mr A returned home. He was seen the next day by a further out-of-hours GP. Mr A returned to the board's emergency department the following day, and was again admitted to the acute assessment unit. Over the subsequent days, Mr A's condition deteriorated and he was diagnosed with carcinomatous meningitis (a type of cancer). Mr A died a number of days after his second admission to the acute assessment unit.

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably delayed in diagnosing Mr A with carcinomatous meningitis. She also said that staff unreasonably discharged Mr A from the hospital on several occasions. Finally, she said that staff unreasonably failed to provide effective pain relief.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine, an out-of-hours GP, and a consultant in acute medicine. We found that carcinomatous meningitis is a rare form of cancer that is aggressive and that it presented atypically in this case. We found that staff carried out appropriate investigations, and that it was not unreasonable for them not to identify the cancer at an earlier stage. We identified one delay in reporting an x-ray, although this did not appear to impact on the timescale for diagnosis. As such, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about an unreasonable delay in diagnosing Mr A.

Regarding Mrs C's complaint about the discharges, we found that staff had a reasonable basis for considering Mr A was suffering from gastroenteritis, and therefore, it was appropriate to discharge him. We did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to Mr A's pain relief, we found that this could have been managed better during Mr A's final admission. While we noted the board's concern to balance pain control with consciousness level, we considered that the dosage could have been adjusted to a more appropriate level. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A's family for the failings in pain control and the delay in reporting the x-ray. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• X-rays should be reported promptly, to minimise the danger that results are missed.
• In similar cases, staff should effectively balance pain control with level of consciousness.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about Business Stream's handling of his water charges, and their subsequent handling of his complaint.

Mr C had an existing water account for his business premises based on a particular supply point identification number (SPID) (a reference number used to identify a water connection). A field visit was carried out by Business Stream, and a second account for Mr C was created in error based on a duplicate SPID. This resulted in a significant bill for Mr C. Business Stream recognised the error, and requested that Scottish Water remove the duplicate SPID. However, Scottish Water removed the SPID for the original account, as well as the duplicate. As a result, Business Stream requested a new SPID and account for Mr C. This was created by default as a water and waste water account, however, Mr C's original account was a water only account. He therefore, requested that the new account be amended. A significant period of time passed during which the account was assessed by Business Stream and Scottish Water.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream had:

unreasonably charged him when he had no SPID

unreasonably had the new account created for him following the field visit

unreasonably charged him under the duplicate account

had a new account created as a water and waste water account, which meant that Mr C was unreasonably charged for waste water which he was not liable for

handled his complaint unreasonably

Business Stream acknowledged that there had been a number of failings in the case, but noted that, following the removal of the accounts, they had effectively provided credit for approximately five years, and had made a further payment to Mr C in recognition of his experience.

We took independent advice from a chartered engineer with experience in the water industry. We upheld three of Mr C's five complaints. We found that Business Stream appropriately levied charges prior to the time that the second account was opened. We also found that it was reasonable for Business Stream to charge Mr C under the new account once this was created, as this was consistent with the rules under the Market Code. We did not uphold these two aspects of Mr C's complaint.

We found that Business Stream should have requested the new SPID and account as water only, given that this was to replace Mr C's previous account. We found that it was unreasonable of Business Stream to create the new account following the field visit. We also identified a number of failings in the handling of Mr C's complaint, including delay, the limited consideration of the field visit issue, and some failures to respond to correspondence. We upheld these three aspects of Mr C's complaint and made a number of recommendations to address these issues.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Business Stream should apologise to Mr C for the failings in the handling of his accounts and the failings we identified in the complaints process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Provide Mr C with an explanation for the extent of the bill he received after the new account was opened.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Field agents should collect appropriate information and know how to correctly determine whether a property is paying charges or not so that duplicate accounts are not set up in error.
• There should be systems in place between Business Stream and Scottish Water to ensure requests to deregister SPID numbers are handled correctly.
• Where default SPID numbers are created, they should accurately reflect the services provided to the property.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in a timely manner, and a full response covering all of the issues raised should be provided.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C moved into business premises and she received a phone call from Aimera Ltd, advising that they were the licensed water provider for the premises. Ms C provided a meter reading, but did not at that stage receive any information about her contract, terms and conditions or the charges she could expect to pay. Two months later Ms C was asked for another meter reading, which she provided. She then heard nothing further for another two months, when she received an invoice. She disputed the amount due and ultimately brought her complaints to us.

Aimera Ltd explained that there had been a discrepancy between the last meter reading and the one provided by Ms C. They said that this required further investigation, which resulted in a delay in an invoice being issued. We found that the delay was unreasonable, and we also found that Ms C should have been sent details of the deemed contract she was under, which would have given her information about the charges she could expect, as well as giving her the opportunity to consider her options with regards to alternative water suppliers.

We upheld Ms C's complaints about Aimera's failure to provide information about the account, failure to provide information about the possibility of changing supplier, failure to meet the terms of the deemed contract, and the delay in issuing the initial invoice.

Ms C also complained about Aimera Ltd's application of the wrong Rateable Value (RV) of the premises when calculating her invoice. The RV had changed, but Aimera were billing with reference to the original RV. We accepted Aimera's explanation that it was the responsibility of the proprietor or tenant to notify them of any such changes. We were satisfied that as soon as Aimera were notified of the change they had applied it and had issued a revised invoice. We did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Ms C with a formal apology for the shortcomings in the way her account was handled and the delays in providing her with an initial invoice. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about a number of issues related to his son (Mr A)'s primary school. Mr A had special adjustments in place which Mr C felt had been disclosed inaccurately to other parents by teaching staff. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint about the matter was handled by council staff.

We found that the council had apologised to Mr C and his family for making inaccurate comments at a public meeting. We considered various possible factors raised by Mr C, but did not find evidence to clearly identify that any specific teacher or council officer had released confidential information about Mr A's special adjustments.

However, we considered that certain remarks made to Mr C were not appropriate; that a council officer should not have notified elected members not to respond to Mr C's correspondence; and that the handling of Mr C's complaint regarding this matter was not adequate. We upheld these aspects and recommended that the council apologise to Mr C and share our findings with relevant staff.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified and draw these findings to the attention of relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C was experiencing difficulty negotiating with his neighbour about a repair to the chimney head at his property. Mr C complained that the council provided inconsistent information about the council's roles and responsibilities in relation to the communal repairs. Mr C also complained about the way the council handled his complaint.

The council issued a notice to Mr C and his neighbour, requesting that they take the appropriate action to repair the chimney head. The council explained that they would only carry out default repairs in exceptional circumstances. They also advised that the best option for Mr C would be to take civil action against his neighbour. The council acknowledged that they did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure, and said that they have since recruited a complaints handling officer and provided training to their staff.

We found that the council did provide consistent information about their role in relation to communal repairs and that they did not at any point advise that they would carry out the default repairs. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to complaints handling, we found that the council did not correctly follow their complaints handling procedure as they failied to advise Mr C of his rights to bring his complaint to us. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with his complaint appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C, an advocacy and support worker, complained to us on behalf of his client (Ms A). Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to respond to Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour. He also complained that the council failed to assess Ms A's housing application in line with their obligations.

We found that the council had responded appropriately to Ms A's complaints about anti-social behaviour, and that their responses to her complaints were in accordance with their policy. As such, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Regarding the housing application, Ms A was unhappy with the housing award that the council had given her and felt that she qualified for a different award. Mr C wrote to the council on Ms A's behalf to appeal the outcome of the award. In this letter, Mr C provided detailed evidence from Ms A which Ms A considered to be proof that she met the criteria for a different housing award. The council treated Mr C's letter as a complaint and provided a stage two complaints response. We found that the council had incorrectly treated Mr C's letter as a complaint, rather than an appeal against Ms A's housing application. Whilst Mr C had addressed his letter to the incorrect recipient at the council, we found that the council had not communicated clearly with Ms A or Mr C, which had led to confusion. We found that the council did consider a later appeal submitted by Ms A, however at this time they did not take into account the contents of Mr C's earlier letter. Given that the council had not considered all of the relevant information with respect to the appeal, we upheld Mr C's complaint about Ms A's housing application.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms A for failing to take into account all relevant information as part of the appeal of her housing application. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Staff should take into account relevant information when considering appeals in housing matters.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) accepted a tenancy from the council. She recalled having been advised that a garden area was for her sole use. When she approached her neighbours over their use of the garden area they told her that they had access and use rights to the area. Miss A sought clarification from the council about this. The council confirmed that the neighbours had some rights to access and use the garden area. Mr C complained to the council that this was contrary to what his daughter had been told when she was offered the tenancy. He further complained that the time the council had taken to clarify matters had been unreasonable. The council told Mr C that their recollection was that Miss A had been aware that there was no certainty over the use of the garden area when she accepted the tenancy and that they had apologised for the unreasonable delay in providing clarification. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he raised his complaints with us.

We found that there was no clear, objective evidence of what Miss A was told before she accepted the tenancy and, consequently, we did not uphold the first aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the time taken to provide clarification had been unreasonable, and we also found no evidence that an apology had been given to Miss A. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C and Miss A for the delay in clarifying rights in relation to garden areas at Miss A's tenancy. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

The funeral service for Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A) was delayed due to earlier services over-running. However, Mrs C said that Mrs A's family and the other people attending the funeral were not pro-actively made aware of the delay and that they were not advised that there was nowhere sheltered for them to sit whilst they waited after they vacated their cars. The council responded to Mrs C's complaints about these matters, but did not accept that they bore any responsibility for the delay or that any further action by them was required.

Mrs C brought her complaints to us. She complained that the council did not act reasonably to minimise the delay to the funeral, that they did not advise the family or the other people attending the funeral of the likelihood of a delay and that they did not respond reasonably to her complaints.

We found that the council could not have acted to minimise the delay once it emerged, so we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, we agreed that several actions that the council had proposed in their response to us could reduce the likelihood of similar delays occurring in the future.

We found that the council did not act reasonably in communicating the circumstances to Mrs A's family or the other people attending the funeral, and so we upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint.

We further found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints. We found that they had not responded in line with their complaints procedure and that they had included contradictory information in their responses to Mrs C. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they:
• did not act reasonably to advise her family or other mourners of the likelihood of a delay to Mrs A's funeral service
• did not respond to her complaints in line with their complaints procedure
• provided her with contradictory information within and between complaints responses.
• The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The council should:
• implement a system to ensure that, when a service is booked, an advisory note will be issued automatically to the funeral director or person making the booking regarding the length of service and what is expected of the funeral directors and celebrants with regard to timeous running of services and what the consequences may be if a service overruns
• give further practical and sensitive consideration to installing a light system in the service chapel, which will be visible to officiants but not mourners, and which will be operated by crematorium staff, to advise the officiant of the time left for the service to be completed.Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Advise an appropriate point of contact immediately when likely delays to funeral services emerge.
• Additional seats should be installed outside of the crematorium. This should ensure that, if delays occur, those waiting do not have to stand whilst waiting for entry to the crematorium.
• Information should be provided to arriving mourners when there are delays to services beginning, or when sheltered waiting areas cannot be accessed at the crematorium.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints responses should not contain contradictory information.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's Scottish Welfare Fund team had taken an unreasonable length of time to fulfil a community care grant award for removal costs. Mr C said that, as a result, he incurred additional rent charges due to not being able to move into his new property and not receiving housing benefit for that new property until he was a resident there. He was also unhappy with delays in the council responding to his complaint and not being kept updated on the progress of his complaint.

We noted that the council processed his community care grant application well within the statutory timescales. The council uses a particular removal firm to fulfil awards and, after an award is made, informs the firm and leaves them and the applicant to liaise about the details of the removal. We found nothing in the Scottish Welfare Fund regulations or statutory guidance to suggest that this arrangement was not allowable. We also noted that the council contacted the removal firm for an update after a reasonable length of time. The firm informed the council that they had issues contacting the applicant but were able to make arrangements soon afterwards. Overall, we did not find any evidence of maladministration during the application process or in the council's method of fulfilment. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we did find that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to Mr C's complaint. We also found that they did not keep him updated and that they missed their own timescales that they laid out to him. Although there was an apology in their response to him, we did not consider that it was adequate or that their response fully explained the reasons for the delays. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and instructed the council to provide Mr C with a fuller explanation and an apology for the delays.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in complaints handling.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about his housing association's response to reports of anti-social behaviour and their response to his request for a repair.

We found that the association had spoken to neighbours and the caretaker to gather more information on Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. We also found that the association had appropriately informed Mr C of the outcome of their investigations. However, we were critical that they did not contact Police Scotland to find out what information they held, as Mr C had passed on a police incident number. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that the repair request was actioned appropriately and we did not uphold that aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The association should gather all available evidence to inform their response to reports of anti-social behaviour, including records from Police Scotland if necessary.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.