Some upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the way in which the council had dealt with his complaint and so requested that it be dealt with by way of a Complaints Review Committee (CRC). This was in line with the council's social work policy and was acknowledged by them in May 2014. Mr C complained that, thereafter, the council failed to follow their stated procedure in that there was a delay and he did not receive a copy of the report produced. He also complained that officers acted unreasonably towards him by saying that he was pedantic and by trying to get him to withdraw his complaint.

We found that although it took a while for a CRC to be held, this was for reasons outwith the council's control. However, there was a delay in issuing the decision to Mr C and contrary to their policy, he was not sent a copy of the final report. This part of his complaint was, therefore, upheld. We found no proof to confirm that Mr C had been called pedantic or that the council had tried to persuade him to abandon his complaint. It was clear that the council had given him choices about how to proceed, either by way of a hearing or on the basis of written submissions, and it was also clear that the final decision lay with Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make an appropriate apology; and
• provide Mr C with a copy of the final report as submitted.

Summary

Miss C and Mr C complained about how the council had processed their council tax and how they had communicated with them about their liability and payments. Miss C and Mr C also complained about how the council responded to their complaint.

Miss C and Mr C missed two council tax payments and on each occasion the council sent them reminder notices. They missed a third payment, and the council passed the debt to a debt management partner (DMP) for collection.

We found that the council had explained the amounts Miss C and Mr C would owe and had set out a payment schedule of when to pay. We also noted the council had appropriately processed the payments they had made. We therefore did not uphold these complaints.

However, we found the council had not used accurate figures in the response to Miss and Mr C's complaint. They also failed to explain that the outstanding amount was from a charge levied by the DMP, over and above the council tax owed. Both of these things had caused confusion and we upheld this complaint.

Furthermore, we noted the council had not provided copies of information held by their DMP, as we would expect, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the error identified;
• feed back to relevant staff the outcome of this decision, particularly regarding the importance of explaining all relevant charges; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of providing all relevant documents to us, including those they can source from external contractors.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of issues relating to the council's handling of a statutory notice issued for repairs to her property. In particular, she complained that the council had failed to inform her that the cost of the repairs had increased from the initial estimate. She also complained that the council had allowed the cost of these works to increase unreasonably; that they had unreasonably carried out works not detailed in the statutory notice; and that they had delayed in issuing the final invoice for the works carried out.

We were concerned that the council were unable to provide documentary evidence that the owners were kept advised of any cost increase in relation to the works, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation. However, during our investigation we found no evidence that the council allowed the costs of the works to increase unreasonably. We found that they had explained that the initial estimate had been prepared following a non-intrusive ground survey and the cost increase had been caused by a more accurate assessment and measurement of the scale of the required repairs. We also found no evidence that the council had carried out works that were not subject to the statutory notice which had been issued.

While we were concerned that the council had delayed in issuing the final invoice we found no evidence that the final account had increased as a result of this delay. We were also mindful that the delay had been accepted by the council and they had apologised to Mrs C for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for their handling of this matter.

Summary

Mr C raised his concerns about the handling of his wedding by Leisure and Culture Dundee. In particular, Mr C complained that when he met with an officer he was provided with inaccurate information before booking his wedding and that he planned his wedding around this inaccurate information. As a result, he had had to reduce the number of guests attending the ceremony and cancel the live music he had booked and paid for. He was also unhappy with the handling of his complaint.

During our investigation we found no objective evidence that inaccurate information had been provided verbally to Mr C prior to booking his wedding. Arrangements for the wedding had been based on the information contained within the booking form. We were also satisfied that Leisure and Culture Dundee had taken action to ensure that in future there will be a record of information given to customers; customers will be provided with an information leaflet; there will be three members of staff available to meet with customers; and customers will be provided with a named officer.

However, we were concerned about aspects of the handling of Mr C's complaint at the second stage of Leisure and Culture Dundee's complaints procedure, and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Leisure and Culture Dundee:

• apologise for their handling of Mr C's complaint; and
• ensure that staff adhere to the complaints process, in particular, in relation to extending timescales, updating complainants, and ensuring that complainants receive a full explanation for the decision reached on their complaint.

Summary

Miss C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application; in particular, that the development had not been built in line with approved plans. Miss C was also concerned that she had not been notified about amended plans which had been submitted. She also complained that the council failed to include a screening condition within the planning decision notice, and about the council's handling of her representations.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. During our investigation we found that the council had responded to Miss C's concerns about the planning merits of the development and while there was a variation in relation to the height of the development, this was small and did not represent a material difference. As such, no further action was necessary. We found no evidence of fault in the handling of the planning application. While we also found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision that there was no need for a screening condition, we were concerned that Miss C had been provided with conflicting information on this matter.

While we did not find that the council's responses to Miss C's representations were unreasonable, we found that they should have clarified at an earlier stage whether Miss C was raising a complaint in terms of their complaints handling procedure and should have provided information on progressing her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure in relation to identifying complaints at the outset and providing relevant information on progressing a complaint;
• apologise for their handling of this matter; and
• review this case to see if any further lessons can be learned to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) about the council's application of their unacceptable actions policy (UAP). Mr A had been in contact with the council over a number of years about matters relating to the care of his child. Following concern about the nature and frequency of Mr A's contact with the council, they notified him that they had applied their UAP to manage his contact with them.

We found that the council had decided to implement their UAP after proper consideration had been given to Mr A's communication with their staff, so we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the council had applied the UAP inconsistently or that they had acted unreasonably in not inviting either Ms C or Mr A to meetings regarding his child, so we also did not uphold these aspects of the complaint although we did make a recommendation about the council's procedures for arranging such meetings.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that there appeared to be an ad-hoc approach to the council reviewing Mr A's status under the UAP and lack of communication with him about this, although we were satisfied that they had since carried out a review, so we did not make any further recommendations about this. We also found that there were unreasonable delays in some of the council's responses to Mr A's complaint, so we upheld this aspect of the complaint too.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that parents are notified of the dates of any forthcoming reviews regarding their children; and
• take steps to ensure that complainants' representatives are notified if UAP restrictions are to apply to their correspondence as well.

Summary

Mrs C raised a number of complaints with the council about how she felt the school were failing to provide a safe and supportive environment for her oldest son. Mrs C also complained that the response to her youngest son's allegation about being hit by a teacher was inadequate.

After the council investigated the issues, it found the school considered that some of the incidents could have been handled differently. Whilst the issues were addressed by the school over time, we found that they should have been addressed from the outset given they related to a young child's health and safety, so we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We did not uphold Mrs C's other complaints. We identified sufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to address her oldest son's support needs at an early stage and measures put in place with appropriate review taking place. There was also insufficient evidence to indicate that there was an issue with him being bullied. Although we considered that the council's response to Mrs C's complaint about her youngest son being hit by a teacher should have been fuller - and we made a recommendation about this - we found that there was clear evidence to demonstrate the school had taken reasonable action to investigate the allegations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not addressing the health and safety concerns in a timely manner; and
• ensure that witness statements are obtained where appropriate, and relevant information is included in complaint responses, in order to demonstrate that the issues have been thoroughly investigated and the outcome clearly explained.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C had a number of concerns about their daughter's school and raised this with the head teacher. The head teacher met with them to discuss this, but they remained concerned that the issues had not been resolved. They also felt the school took subsequent action against their daughter as repercussion for their complaint. Mr and Mrs C raised their concerns with the council, who undertook several investigations of the issues over the next year and a half.

The council acknowledged that there had been poor handling and communication in relation to Mr and Mrs C's complaints, which had caused a prolonged period of frustration for them. While they did not uphold all of Mr and Mrs C's complaints, they apologised for the way things had been handled and took action to improve their processes, including developing new complaints handling guidance for schools and creating a new role to oversee complex complaints. However, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to us.

We investigated and upheld two of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. While we found no evidence that the head teacher failed to keep a commitment made to follow up an issue, we found a number of failings in the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's subsequent complaints. In particular, we were critical that the council undertook several 'informal investigations' when the complaint was first made, rather than following their complaints procedure. We were also concerned that the council did not refer to relevant policies in their final complaint response. While we noted that the council had apologised and taken steps to improve their complaints handling, we made some additional recommendations to ensure that this action would address the failings we found.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• demonstrate to us that education and schools staff have been made aware of the new guidance and processes for complaints;
• take steps to ensure that complaints handling staff routinely consider which policies may be relevant to the complaint;
• write to Mr and Mrs C and their daughter (as applicable) to clarify what action was taken in response to the upheld parts of their stage two complaints; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C and their daughter for the overall failings our investigation found.

Summary

Mr C saw a podiatrist because of the deteriorating condition of his foot due to an ulcer. He then had several admissions to Ninewells Hospital as well as being seen as an out-patient. He underwent an artery bypass (a procedure to improve blood flow) from just below the knee to the foot with amputation of several toes and a skin graft. The bypass and the skin graft failed and Mr C may need further surgery in the future.

We took independent advice from a podiatrist and a vascular surgeon. In relation to the podiatry treatment provided, we found that there were clear indications that Mr C had progressive foot disease when he saw the podiatrist on three occasions which the podiatrist failed to act on including referring Mr C to secondary care within a reasonable time. Clinical notes of Mr C's assessments were also inadequate. We found that the relevant guidelines (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, SIGN) were not followed. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. With regard to the surgical care that Mr C received during his two admissions to hospital, we found that on the whole the board provided a reasonable standard of care and treatment but that there was an unreasonable delay in treating the foot initially when clinicians became aware that it was infected. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to Mr C's out-patient appointments following discharge from hospital, we were satisfied that there was evidence showing that assessment for each out-patient appointment was reasonable as was communication in relation to the management plan. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• review the podiatry service to ensure complex foot problems are appropriately managed in the community in line with relevant SIGN guidelines including access to multi-disciplinary teams;
• bring our decision including the medical advisers' comments to the attention of the podiatrist and ensure it is reflected upon and addressed at their annual appraisal;
• address the shortcomings in record-keeping with the podiatrist;
• bring our decision including the medical advisers' comments to the attention of the relevant vascular healthcare professionals and ensure it is reflected upon and addressed at their annual appraisal; and
• apologise for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C sustained nerve damage following dental treatment she received in 2014. She also complained that the dentist failed to respond to the Edinburgh Dental Institute (EDI)'s request for further information after she was referred there for further review.

We sought independent advice from a general dental practitioner. We considered that the symptoms Mrs C experienced in October 2014 were consistent with accidental injection of sodium hypochlorite (a solution used to clean out the root canal) through the end of the root of her tooth. This is a rare but recognised complication of the treatment and is not in itself evidence of unreasonable care. We also considered that prior to 2015, it was a risk which would not normally have been discussed with patients before treatment. We did, however, identify the likelihood that the dentist had not used a rubber dam (a device used to isolate the root canal and protect a patient's airway) and concluded that this was unreasonable practice even though it would not have prevented the nerve damage caused. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint. We found no evidence to demonstrate that the dentist had not responded to any requests for information from the EDI and we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failure to use a rubber dam; and
• takes steps to ensure the use of a rubber dam.