Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Miss C was unhappy with the condition of a property she moved into. She said the property was not clean and smelled of urine, with stains on the floors and doorways. Miss C said that it took the council too long to carry out repairs that were needed, and that the council did not respond to all the issues she raised in her complaint.

The council's letting standard is that properties should be clean and free of offensive smells. It was clear from the void inspection report that the property was in a poor state of cleanliness. However, we found evidence that some cleaning was carried out, as the property was being cleaned when Miss C viewed it. We took into account that Miss C viewed the property and that neither Miss C, nor the council officer present at the viewing, noticed or reported any offensive smell at this time. Overall the evidence showed that the council had taken the kind of steps we would expect to check that the property was in a lettable condition by arranging for it to be cleaned and repaired. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

We found that when Miss C reported emergency repairs they were dealt with in a timely way, according to the council's policy. We found a flea infestation was treated within a reasonable timescale. Although the council's policy was not prescriptive in terms of how long repairs categorised as non-emergency should take, we found that the time taken to complete joinery works to replace sections of stained flooring was not excessive. The council acknowledged the disruption to Miss C in responding to her complaint.

We found it took too long for the council to repair a path and steps and to replace a handrail. We asked the council to check whether this repair should have been carried out according to the right to repair legislation. There was also evidence that other small non-emergency repairs logged following an inspection visit were not progressed with reasonable efficiency and that relatively straightforward issues were not resolved within a reasonable timescale.

Miss C's letter of complaint raised a number of different issues linked to her move to the property. The council's response addressed the main issues raised within the relevant timescale. Miss C's complaint was partially upheld by the council. They said they were sorry that the condition of the property was not as Miss C had expected, and they acknowledged that her move had been more stressful than anticipated. The council apologised for the inconvenience and upheaval caused.

Overall we considered the content of the council's response to Miss C's complaint to be reasonable. However we noted that the council's response did not address all of the issues Miss C raised. We upheld this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the evidence in respect of the repair to the stairs, path and handrail and consider whether this repair should have been dealt with under the right to repair rules. The council should assess, if appropriate, whether any payment is due to Miss C under the right to repair rules. The council should also write to Miss C to confirm the outcome of the review, and send a copy to us.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of her concerns about alleged bullying at her son's school. Mrs C raised concerns that the council failed to formally record her concerns about bullying, failed to investigate these concerns, and failed to handle her complaint appropriately.

The council advised that the school did not consider the behaviour complained about to be bullying, so it had not been recorded as such. They considered that this had been appropriately investigated. The council acknowledged there had been some confusion in the complaints process surrounding the appropriate procedure.

After reviewing the council's complaints file and reviewing the relevant policies, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that there had been failures in recording the alleged bullying. In particular, the council's guidance suggested alleged incidents of bullying needed to be recorded on the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form as such, not only cases where bullying was found to occur.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about investigating bullying, we found that there was evidence that the school had investigated the incidents and considered that they did not amount to bullying. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Regarding the handling of Mrs C's complaint, we noted there were a number of issues, including confusion regarding the appropriate policy and delays in responding. Therefore, we considered the council had not adhered to their complaints handling policy, and we found the handling of the complaint to have been unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings in complaints handling identified in this investigation;
• feed back to relevant staff the failings identified in the handling of Mrs C's complaint;
• apologise for the failings in recording alleged bullying incidents identified in this investigation;
• take steps to ensure the Bullying Concern Initial Referral Form is appropriately completed; and
• provide us with evidence that the council's policy guidance has been reflected in the school's anti-bullying policy.

Summary

Mr C had a number of concerns about the council's administration in relation to council tax. Mr C lets a property within the council's area, and when the tenants of his property changed, he provided information to the council about the change by email. The council sent Mr C a paper form by post and requested that he complete this so that the change in liability could be processed. Mr C complained that the council asked him to provide information in this form that he had already provided by email. We found that the information Mr C had provided by email would not have been sufficient for the council to correctly establish liability for the new tenants. We were therefore not critical that the council asked Mr C to complete a change in tenant notification form.

Mr C complained that the council had requested more information than was necessary to establish that a tenancy existed, and consequently that a tenant was the liable person. We found that the council had a policy to request a copy of the tenancy agreement as well as a copy of a special notice (an AT5 notice) that would make a tenancy a short assured tenancy. The council advised us that, although an AT5 was not required in terms of council tax legislation, they requested this document for a number of other reasons, including to promote best practice in the private rented sector. We were critical that the council had held Mr C to be the liable person for council tax when they held enough information to determine that this was not the case. We were also critical that the council's complaint response to Mr C was inconsistent with the council's guidance on tenancies and AT5 notices. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had asked him to provide an AT5 notice to tenants retrospectively. We found that the council had acknowledged that a customer service representative had given improper advice regarding when an AT5 could be provided and had apologised to Mr C for this. The council also said that refresher training had been arranged and that staff had been reminded of the guidance, which correctly states that an AT5 notice cannot be provided retrospectively. We upheld this complaint, but we made no further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review the policy to request AT5 notices in relation to council tax liability taking into account the findings of this investigation;
• take steps to ensure that relevant officers are familiar with the council's published guidance on Short Assured Tenancies and AT5 notices; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified within this investigation.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the way the council handled a request for a non-material variation (NMV) to a planning application. He said that the council had withheld and delayed the online publication of documentation. The NMV report by the council had contained two inaccuracies, which the council had already identified and agreed. Mr C felt that the council had failed to have appropriate policies/procedures in place to prevent inaccuracies in the published report and that, because of the errors identified, they had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV.

We sought independent planning advice. We found that there was no statutory obligation on the council to publish these documents. In light of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that it did not appear that appropriate cross-checking had occurred in this case. We were concerned that the system of checks put in place in part to identify errors had failed on this occasion. Therefore we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had failed to accurately and correctly assess the NMV due to the factual errors in the report. However, given that the council had already acknowledged the errors, apologised and discussed the matter with the planning officer concerned, and that the errors in the report did not lead us to question the soundness of the council's overall decision, we did not make further recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• audit and, if necessary, review their process for checking reports and provide us with evidence of the outcome of the audit, as well as of action taken to improve any shortfalls.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of an application to construct an anaerobic digestion plant (a plant in which farm and food waste is digested for methane) on land near his property.

Mr C said he only became aware of the project after construction started as he had not been consulted during the planning stage. It became apparent that the council had received an application over a year previously, consulted, and ultimately approved it.

Mr C complained that the council did not specifically refer to his property during the planning process. He also raised concerns that the council did not include a buffer zone around his property in accordance with the Scottish Planning Policy.

The council said that they did not need to refer specifically to Mr C's property, and noted the planning documents referred to nearby dwellings. In relation to Mr C's concerns about the imposition of a buffer zone, the council said this was not mandatory under the policy. However, they said they had considered this and came to the conclusion it was not necessary.

After receiving independent advice from a planning consultant, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council failed to specifically refer to his property. While we noted Mr C's concerns about awareness of his property, we found no procedural failing in the council's consultation process, or any requirement to specifically identify his property. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the buffer zone. We noted that the council were unable to provide any evidence that this had been taken into account, which we would have expected in the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the failings identified in this investigation; and
• feed back the findings of this investigation to the relevant staff, and report back on any action taken.

Summary

Mr C owns a flat in a block of six, half of which are owned by the council and half of which are privately owned. Mr C complained that the council failed to write to him to advise of repairs that needed to be carried out in communal areas and that as a consequence no estimates were obtained and he had not been aware that work had taken place.

The council invoiced Mr C in March 2016 for work carried out in April 2015 and August 2015. He complained about the delay in receiving the invoice and asked for a breakdown of costs, which the council said they were unable to provide. The council instructed a debt collection agency to recover the debt, and Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify him that this would be their next step.

The council provided evidence showing that they had notified owners of planned repairs, allowing them time to obtain alternative estimates. Mr C accepted that in the case of emergency repairs the council did not need to notify owners in advance. We considered that the council had not unreasonably failed to notify Mr C in advance of repairs that required to be carried out, and did not uphold this complaint.

We found that the delay in issuing the invoice for repairs in April and August 2015 was unacceptable, and recommended that the council apologise for this.

With regards to providing a breakdown of costs, the council's position was that repairs are often carried out by sub-contractors, who invoice the council in batched accounts. We considered it reasonable for the council not to provide a breakdown of costs in these situations but recommended that when possible, for example when repairs are carried out by council tradespeople, the council should provide a breakdown of costs.

Mr C complained that the council gave him no notice that they would be instructing a debt collection agency to recover sums owed. However, the council provided evidence showing that there had been a clear statement to that effect on the overdue invoice sent to Mr C. We did not uphold this complaint.

We noted Mr C's frustration at not being able to communicate with the council, especially regarding emergency repairs. We recommended that the council nominate a key contact for communication about any matters relating to communal parts of the building and provide Mr C with contact details.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in issuing an invoice;
• provide a breakdown of costs on invoices where possible, and confirm to us that this will be implemented; and
• nominate a key contact for communication regarding communal areas of the building, and provide Mr C with contact details.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association failed to respond reasonably to her reports of the anti-social behaviour of other tenants, including regarding communal areas, and failed to reasonably deal with her subsequent complaint.

We found that the association took appropriate action to investigate and respond to the concerns Miss C raised about anti-social behaviour, including issuing written warnings where corroboration was available. We were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their procedures, and we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

However, we upheld Miss C's complaint about the way her subsequent complaint was dealt with by the association. This is because they failed to respond within the required timescale, an extension was not agreed, and the complaint was not escalated appropriately, in accordance with the requirements of their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• clarify in their policies and procedures the responsibilities of the organisation as regards the maintenance of communal areas; and
• remind relevant staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care and treatment provided by the medical practice to his late wife (Mrs A), who suffered from diabetes. In particular, he complained about the treatment of Mrs A's ulcers, decisions made by the practice during home visits and the practice's initial decision to refuse a home visit. Mr C also complained about the practice's response to his complaint.

During our investigation we took independent GP and nursing advice. The advice we received from the GP adviser was that the care and treatment given to Mrs A was in line with NHS guidance on the management of diabetes, and the decisions taken by the practice during home visits were reasonable. The advice we received from the nursing adviser was that the nursing care provided by the practice was reasonable.

We found no evidence that a home visit had been refused by the practice, but that the practice had been hesitant to visit given that a home visit had been carried out within 24 hours prior and the complaint remained the same. The advice we received and accepted from the GP adviser was that in these circumstances it had been reasonable to question the necessity for another home visit.

The practice had accepted that there were inaccuracies in their response to Mr C and in their clinical records. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the practice:

• formally apologise to Mr C for the upset caused to him and his family by their response.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife (Mrs A) about the clinical treatment she received when she attended A&E at the Gilbert Bain Hospital. We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. The advice we received was that the assessment and treatment of Mrs A was reasonable and that appropriate investigations were carried out, and that Mrs A did not require hospital admission. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.

However, the advice we received said that while written notes made by the doctor caring for Mrs A were of a high standard, one thing that could have been improved was the inclusion of vital signs and we made a recommendation to the board regarding this.

Mr C also raised his concern that the doctor had failed to reasonably interpret Mrs A's chest x-ray. The board accepted that the doctor had failed to appreciate the significance of the radiographic appearance on the base of Mrs A's left lung on the x-ray. They apologised for this and explained that the issue of x-ray interpretation had been discussed with the doctor. The advice we received was that the action taken by the board was reasonable. While we upheld the complaint, given the action taken by the board we made no further recommendations.

Mr C complained that the board inappropriately discharged Mrs A when she attended the hospital, particularly as she had had to re-attend the following day. The advice we received was that Mrs A did not require hospital admission. We did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• draw the importance of including vital signs in written notes to the attention of relevant staff as part of their professional supervision.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board failed to provide him with appropriate treatment in relation to removal of a fatty lump on his neck/shoulder area and provided him with misleading information regarding waiting times. He also said the board failed to adequately respond to his formal complaints about these matters.

Mr C felt that the removal of the lump could have been carried out under local anaesthetic at a nearby hospital, instead of under general anaesthetic at a hospital further away as planned by the board. He also said that the board failed to consider his request to change his attendance time from 08:00 to 11:00 to accommodate his travel arrangements. We took independent medical advice and found that the expertise required for the procedure was only available at the further away hospital. The adviser also said that the decision to carry out the procedure under general anaesthetic was reasonable, as it reduced the risk of complications. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we did make a recommendation in relation to the board's handling of Mr C's request for a different attendance time.

Mr C said that the board unreasonably changed his treatment time guarantee (TTG) date, said that he was unavailable for a two-week period, and unreasonably offered him a re-scheduled appointment at very short notice. We found that it was not reasonable for the board to offer a re-scheduled operation at short notice, at the weekend, at some distance from a patient's home, without taking the lack of public transport into account or offering to provide transport for Mr C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr C was also concerned that the phone line he was required to use to discuss his appointment was unanswered. However, we found that the board had taken reasonable action to address this issue.

In relation to the handling of Mr C's complaint, we found that the board took six and a half months to provide him with a response, instead of doing so within 20 working days as set out in their complaints handling procedure and NHS Scotland guidance. We found that they did not provide updates, and unreasonably failed to respond to calls and emails from Mr C. We therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• feed back the findings of this investigation to staff involved;
• ensure that exceptional circumstances are appropriately taken into account when deciding patients' hospital attendance times;
• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to appropriately communicate with him regarding the cancellation of his surgery;
• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the waiting list services booking staff involved;
• ensure that exceptional circumstances are appropriately considered when deciding whether to apply a period of unavailability to a patient's TTG;
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the misleading information given to him about waiting list guarantees;
• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the complaints handling staff involved; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to provide him with updates on his complaint and failing to respond to his communications about his complaint.