Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the council's involvement in statutory notice works that had been carried out to his property over four years. Mr C had several concerns, including the tendering process for the contractors, the communication with owners about the works, the management of the works, the decision to charge all owners in equal shares, and the billing and debt recovery process. Mr C also complained that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his complaints and that they had not answered all of his questions regarding an independent review that was carried out of the statutory notice projects.

Our investigation found that the council had appropriately and reasonably followed their policies and guidance with regard to the issues about which Mr C complained. However, we found that they had failed to respond in full to the first of Mr C's three formal complaints. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to respond in full to Mr C's first formal complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a council tenant, complained to the council about a number of issues regarding his new property. He complained that the council failed to ensure that his property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair and that they failed to follow their housing allocations policy. Mr C also complained that he was provided with incorrect information about his entitlement to a decoration grant and about his utilities contract. He also said that he was provided with wrong information about anti-social behaviour complaints from a previous tenant, dog fouling and the council's handling of his complaint. Mr C was dissatisfied with the response from the council. He felt that the council did not properly investigate his complaints and that they failed to offer remedies to his upheld complaints. Mr C brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to follow their housing allocation policy as they did not offer Mr C a 'settling in visit' after he moved into his new property and that they failed to ensure that Mr C had the opportunity to choose his own energy provider. We upheld these complaints and recommended the council provide Mr C with a written apology for these failings. We found that the council have already taken steps to ensure that tenants are better informed about their arrangements with their energy providers and we have asked the council to provide us with an update on their improvements. We found no failing in the council's actions regarding the standard of repair in Mr C's property and the decoration grant. We found that the council acted appropriately regarding Mr C's complaints about dog fouling and the information provided to him about the previous tenant's complaints of anti-social behaviour. We also found the council's handling of Mr C's complaint to be reasonable. We did not uphold these complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to follow their housing allocations policy by ensuring that a 'settling in visit' was arranged. Further apologise for failing to inform Mr C about their arrangements with the energy provider for the property. 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

Ms C complained to the council about a decision taken to refer a concern about her child (child A) to the social work department. The referral occurred after the head teacher of child A's primary school became aware of an incident that was considered to be a potential welfare concern to the child. The head teacher separately called Ms C and child A's father (Mr B) and asked them both to attend a meeting. A meeting was not arranged and the head teacher then decided to refer the concern to social work. The reasons given for this decision were that the incident gave rise to a potential welfare concern to child A and that the parents refused to attend a meeting.

Ms C said that neither she nor Mr B were able to attend a meeting on the date suggested and that the school was unwilling to arrange a meeting at a convenient time. We found that the school's records did not provide a consistent picture in relation to whether child A's parents were willing to attend a meeting. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish whether the parents would have attended a meeting on a different date.

We were critical that the record-keeping in relation to this matter was not as complete as it should have been, and records were not kept in accordance with the council's standard circular, 'Protecting Children and Ensuring their Wellbeing'. We made recommendations in relation to this. We concluded that the decision to refer the concern to social work was one that involved the head teacher exercising their professional judgement based on their assessment of the information available at the time. We also found the correct procedure for the referral had broadly been followed. In view of this, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C also complained that the school had unreasonably failed to amend information in child A's educational records. We found that Ms C had complained that the record was inaccurate, but we did not consider that Ms C made a clear request for this information to be removed. We concluded that the council had not failed to take appropriate action in relation to this matter. For this reason, we did not uphold this complaint.

Ms C raised concerns about the council's handling of her complaint. We found that Ms C initially submitted an online complaint to the council, but this had not been logged or acknowledged in accordance with the council's procedure which meant that Ms C had to contact a councillor to progress her complaint. The council acknowledged to us that they had not appropriately responded to Ms C's query about a meeting and we concluded that the council had missed a potential opportunity to resolve (at least part of) the complaint at an earlier stage. We also found that the council had not kept appropriate records of their complaint investigation. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Ms C with a written apology for the shortcomings in record-keeping and the complaints handling failings, which should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Detailed records should be kept in accordance with the procedures within the council's circular 'Protecting Children and Ensuring their Wellbeing'.

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 unreasonably failed to respond to his concerns of dampness, water leaks and mould, in line with their procedures. He also complained that they failed to respond reasonably after he reported problems with his boiler, and that customer service staff responded unreasonably when he phoned them to report his concerns.

We found that the council did not meet the requirements of their Responsive Repairs Policy in relation to the first two aspects of Mr C's complaint, and we upheld these. We were, however, satisfied that the council acted in line with their customer service standards and complaints procedure in relation to the third aspect of his complaint, and we did not uphold this part.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should provide a written apology which complies with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology.

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 the council's handling of a complaints review committee (CRC), in relation to care arrangements for his elderly mother after she was discharged from hospital. Mr C complained that the CRC was unreasonably delayed, and that the council did not take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC. In addition, Mr C was unhappy with the council's consideration, at a different CRC, of his concerns about an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA).

We found that the council failed to make arrangements for a CRC as soon as Mr C told them he wanted to progress his complaint to that stage. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that delays after this point were largely due to Mr C engaging in protracted correspondence with the council, and due to Mr C's choice not to proceed to a CRC for a period of time, but to approach us instead without having been to a CRC.

We found that the council did take steps to remedy failings identified by the CRC, so we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, one matter identified by the CRC was not addressed, and we have made a recommendation to remedy this specific issue.

We noted that Mr C disagreed with the council's view about when an EQIA should take place. He wanted an EQIA of contracts and polices within the council, in particular relating to new contracts for dementia care. The council's view was that, as no new policies had been introduced, an EQIA was not necessary. We found that the council considered Mr C's concerns and gave a view based on their reading of their obligations in relation to an EQIA. The council then explained why they did not consider an EQIA to be necessary. In the circumstances, we could not conclude that the council's consideration of Mr C's concerns was unreasonable, and we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to progress his complaint to a CRC in a timely manner. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mr C for failing to address one of the findings of the CRC. This apology should comply with 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 the council as he felt that they had failed to appropriately investigate reports of anti-social behaviour he and his wife had made about their previous neighbour. He claimed that the council had failed to liaise with Police Scotland over charges brought against the neighbour and that this had led to them failing to take appropriate action against her. However, on investigation we found that the council had followed their procedure for investigating anti-social behaviour. This included liaising with the police and confirming the charges in question, which led them to take appropriate and proportionate action in response. We did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Mr C was also unhappy that the council had provided inaccurate information regarding their allocations policy after he completed a mutual exchange into a new property. He explained that the council had told him that he would not be eligible for a three bedroom property despite having two children of the opposite sex, as they were both under ten years old. However, in the council's recent responses to his complaints, they apologised for providing this information and clarified that, although the law states that a child over ten would be considered overcrowded if sharing a room with a sibling of the opposite sex, the council's policy was more generous, and lowered this threshold to eight. Mr C remained dissatisfied about this, as it had led him to wait two years living in overcrowded conditions until his eldest child's tenth birthday before submitting a housing application. He felt that his housing application should be backdated two years as a result. We upheld this complaint and agreed that backdating of the application would be a reasonable resolution in the circumstances.

Finally, Mr C wished to complain about the council's handling of his complaints as he felt there had been delays. However, on investigation we found that the council had taken sufficient steps to keep Mr C updated and that the time taken to respond was not excessive, given the depth and complexity of his complaints to them.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should backdate Mr C's housing application by two years.

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 had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mr C considered that the works carried out at his home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled his complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mr C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold his complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mr C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these. However, we found that in responding to Mr C's official complaint, the council failed to respond within the 20 working days specified in their complaints handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in complaints handling. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this should be explained to the complainant.

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 had carried out works to improve access to a site they owned at the same time as considering planning applications for the site. He was concerned that the works to facilitate access suggested that consent would be granted and, as such, prejudiced the planning applications. He was also unhappy with the consistency of the explanations he had received from the council about the access improvements.

We noted that the council had planned these works for some time prior to the submission of any planning applications, but the works had been delayed and were only initiated around the time of the submission of the applications. We noted that the council were carrying out the access improvements to improve the marketability of the site. We found no evidence to indicate that carrying out the access improvements was in any way unreasonable or inappropriate, nor did we find any evidence that it had prejudiced the planning applications. Indeed, during the course of our investigations, one of the applications was refused consent by the council. For this reason, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, the council failed to provide us with any evidence to refute Mr C's claims that the information provided by the council during the course of his discussions with council officers and elected members was inconsistent and inaccurate. As we did not have any evidence to show that the council were consistent in their advice and information, 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 provide him with consistent information and explanations for the work carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in 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 attended A&E at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh on two occasions. The first occasion was for constipation and increasing back pain. Mr C's second attendance was due to concern that he may have deep veinous thrombosis (a blood clot in a vein).

Mr C complained that when he attended A&E, the board failed to provide him with reasonable nursing and medical care. He also complained about the way the board dealt with his complaint. In reply, the board said that Mr C had been treated in accordance with his symptoms and with national and local guidance. However, they apologised to Mr C for the delay in responding to his complaint.

We took independent nursing and emergency medicine advice. We found that on his first attendance, Mr C was examined in a reasonable way and had been checked for any symptoms requiring urgent admission or imaging. None were present. We found that on his second attendance, the doctor failed to conduct a Wells test (a test to ascertain the risk of blood clot) and that the neurological examination of Mr C's lower limbs was not thorough or to a high standard. In light of these failings, we upheld the complaint and recommended that the board issue an apology to Mr C.

Although the board had taken steps to address Mr C's complaint, they took 120 days to reply. The board's timeframe for responding to complaints is 20 days. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in dealing with his complaint;
• emphasise to staff involved the necessity of adhering to timescales in line with the complaints policy; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to conduct a Wells test and carry out a thorough neurological examination of Mr C's lower limbs.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment that was provided to her late niece (Miss A) by Hairmyres Hospital and Wishaw General Hospital. Miss A had been referred to the board by her GP due to gynaecological problems she had been suffering with. The GP referral was downgraded from urgent to routine by the board. Miss A attended the board's out-of-hours service at Hairmyres Hospital on two occasions between the date of the GP referral and her gynaecology appointment.

Miss A was seen at the gynaecology department at Wishaw General Hospital within the timescales for a routine appointment and, following examination, arrangements were made for day surgery investigations. A number of weeks before the arranged date for surgery, Mrs C became increasingly worried about Miss A's health and took her to Wishaw General Hospital, where she was admitted. Miss A was subsequently diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Mrs C complained that there was an unreasonable delay by staff at Wishaw General Hospital in diagnosing that Miss A had cancer and that the out-of-hours service at Hairmyres Hospital did not take reasonable action in light of the symptoms that Miss A presented with.

In investigating Mrs C's complaints, we took independent advice from a consultant gynaecologist, an out-of-hours GP and a consultant histopathologist (a consultant in the study of changes in tissues caused by disease).

On the basis of the advice we received, we upheld Mrs C's complaint about the delay in staff diagnosing that Miss A was suffering from cancer. While we found that it was reasonable to downgrade the GP referral to routine on the basis of the information available at that time, the advice we received was that there was insufficient urgency in arranging appropriate investigations after Miss A was seen at the gynaecology department at Wishaw General Hospital. Although we considered that there was an unreasonable delay, the advice we received was that earlier diagnosis would not have affected Miss A's prognosis. We found that the board had already identified some improvements to be made in this area, but we made further recommendations as a result of our findings.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about the out-of-hours service at Hairmyres Hospital as the advice received was that reasonable care and treatment were provided for the symptoms that Miss A reported.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that appropriate investigations were not urgently arranged for Miss A following her attendance at the gynaecology department at Wishaw General Hospital. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, found at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Patients with symptoms that are potentially indicative of cervical cancer should be referred for colposcopy (a procedure used to look at the cervix in detail) and seen urgently.

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.