Upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the delay by the council in processing a retrospective planning application for a wind turbine that was built near his home. Planning permission was granted to build three wind turbines near Mr C's home. The third and final of these wind turbines was built approximately two years after the first two but was larger than the others. Mr C raised concerns about this with the council and was unhappy with their response, namely not to take enforcement action and to allow the owner of the turbine to make a retrospective application for planning permission. Mr C was unhappy about the lack of action by the council to remedy this situation.

The council explained that delays in the planning application occurred due to a combination of factors including staffing issues and delays in completing a noise survey. The completion of noise surveys was delayed for a number of reasons including inclement weather and the turbines requiring repairs. The decision was eventually taken to present the owner with the option to have the application determined and refused on the information available, or that they could withdraw the application and re-submit it in three months when the noise surveys could be correctly carried out. The owner withdrew the application and when the new application and noise surveys were not submitted as anticipated, the council began enforcement action. The owner complied with the enforcement action and arranged to have the turbine taken down. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and the delays in this case and brought his complaint to us. We noted that when the council became aware of the planning breach, they responded within the appropriate timescale and requested further information from the owner's agent. However, there was then a delay of several months with no explanation before the decision was made that a retrospective planning application was required.

We took the view that deadlines should have been imposed on the owner much sooner than they were, with the council being overly generous in the time that was allowed to the owner to comply with their requests. The council could also have taken the decision to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient information (or offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application) much sooner than they did. This would have allowed for alternative enforcement action to begin.

We found that the application was live for an excessive period of time and that there were frequent delays in action being taken. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, the council advised that they had taken steps to stop this from happening again in the future, including introducing regular reviews of staff caseloads. We were satisfied with this and asked that the council provide us with evidence of this. We did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment her husband (Mr A) received at Forth Valley Royal Hospital. Mr A was admitted to hospital after sustaining a fracture to his thigh bone. An operation was carried out to insert a pin into the thigh bone to secure the fracture. During the operation, the wrong size of screw was used to fix the pin to the bone. Medical staff discussed this situation with Mr A following the operation, and it was agreed that a further operation would be carried out to replace the screws with those of a correct size. This operation was completed successfully and, after a period of recovery, Mr A was discharged home. Mr A was then re-admitted to hospital after he became unwell. The board carried out blood tests which showed signs of infection, yet it was not clear where the source of the infection was. Mr A's condition deteriorated and he died from a bowel condition related to the infection.

Mrs C complained that the wrong screw was used in the first operation and she felt that the second operation had caused the infection that led to Mr C's death. The board apologised to Mrs C about the use of the wrong screw and informed us that this issue had been discussed at a number of clinical meetings in order to prevent the issue from happening again.

We took independent advice from a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon. They considered that the care and treatment provided to Mr A was reasonable, with the exception of the use of the incorrect screws. The adviser said that, in their opinion, the infection related to Mr A's re-admission was not linked to the orthopaedic treatment he received. Although we were unable to conclude that the orthopaedic treatment received led to Mr A's death, we upheld this complaint and asked that the board send us evidence of the steps they said they had already taken to prevent this from happening again.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her aunt (Mrs A) about the clinical treatment she received when she attended the emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital following a fall. Ms C complained that the board failed to investigate and treat Mrs A's head injury and that the board unreasonably failed to diagnose a shoulder injury.

We took independent advice from a consultant in emergency medicine. We found that the board had not identified that Mrs A had fractured her shoulder. Prior to our investigation, the board had apologised for this and had taken action to address the error. We also found that, although an error had occurred in relation to identifying Mrs A's shoulder injury, overall the care and treatment she had received had been reasonable. In view of the failing to identify the shoulder injury, we upheld the complaint. However, as the board had accepted this failing and had already taken action to address this, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to process his high hedge application reasonably.

Mr C applied for a high hedge notice under the High Hedge (Scotland) Act 2013. His application related to trees forming a hedge along his boundary with a neighbouring property. The council assessed the trees and advised Mr C that they would recommend reducing the hedge at a council committee meeting in approximately two months' time. In the interim, Mr C's neighbour carried out selective pruning. Subsequently, the council re-assessed the trees and decided that they did not have an adverse impact on Mr C's property. Therefore, they decided that no action was required.

Mr C raised concerns about the measurements taken in the case, delays in the handling of the case, and the decision to re-assess the trees. The council acknowledged that there were some failings in the case, including in the accuracy of some measurements, and recognised that a delay had occurred. However, the council considered the re-assessment of the trees was necessary, and that there was no further action they could take to address the trees.

After obtaining independent planning advice, we upheld Mr C's complaint. Regarding re-assessment of the trees, we considered it was not unreasonable for the council to re-assess. However, we did find that there was a delay in the council handling the case and that there were some inaccuracies in the measurements that were taken. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the failings in the handling of the case had largely been identified by the council and we found that they had subsequently taken remedial action. As such, we did not consider that further action from the council was necessary and we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C made a complaint about the council who she stated were not regularly cleaning the street and emptying bins outside her business premises. She had contacted the council on several occasions about this matter but remained unhappy with the response as often nobody would come out to clean or there would be a delay in this being actioned.

The council arranged for additional staff to attend the area and clean but they were unable to access with the road sweeper due to parked cars. They re-arranged to attend and cleaned the immediate area in front of Mrs C's business. She was unhappy about this as there was broken glass on the pavement nearby and rubbish was clogging up the drains. She reported this to the council who escalated her complaint. In their final response they offered an apology for any inconvenience and arranged for a further clean of the street.

Mrs C remained unhappy and asked SPSO to investigate her complaint. We obtained information from the council including case notes and evidence of their local procedures. There was no contrary evidence provided by the council to indicate that they had been meeting their obligations. As Mrs C's business was in a shopping street, local procedure meant it should be cleaned daily. The council had also indicated that they had an increased budget for the new financial year and therefore would be able to improve their street cleaning operations. In light of the absence of any evidence that the street area had been cleaned daily as required, we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled a complaint he had made. He said it had taken too long for the council to respond, and that they unreasonably failed to progress his complaint to the next stage even though he indicated he was still dissatisfied.

We found that although Mr C was clearly dissatisfied with the council’s response generally, his correspondence with them did not clearly state that he wanted to take his complaint to the next stage. We found that whilst he could have made this clearer, best practice would have been for the council to check this with him on receipt of his email.

We found that the council then missed further opportunities to check whether Mr C wanted to progress his complaint, as they should have done. Consequently, Mr C's complaint as not addressed in a timely fashion.

We upheld Mr C's complaint but decided, on balance, not to make any specific recommendation. However, we did ask the council, in conjunction with the senior manager or managers responsible for handling complaints, to identify any further learning and improvement in a proportionate way.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to collect recycling and waste from his address as scheduled. He also complained about the council's handling of his complaint.

The council acknowledged there had been missed collections from Mr C's street and that reasons for this included collection crews having failed to record missed collections. This resulted in Mr C having to report missed collections and complain to the council on several occasions.

We found that until we enquired, the council had failed to investigate and respond to Mr C's second formal complaint about the bin collections. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaints.

The council have taken action to address their failings and Mr C told us the bin collection service was now consistent. We have therefore made no recommendations to the council.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support service, complained on behalf of Ms A about the practice's monitoring of her infant daughter (Miss A). Miss A was diagnosed with hydrocephalus (an abnormal build-up of fluid in the brain) at around four months old. Ms C complained that this should have been picked up sooner.

We took independent medical advice. It was noted that, prior to her six to eight week assessment, the health visitor had measured Miss A's head circumference and the measurement had crossed over the top centile. This should have been a cause for concern and should have prompted a referral for further investigation. However, the health visitor had not taken action to alert the practice. The adviser considered, however, that the GP carrying out Miss A's six to eight week assessment should reasonably have looked at the growth charts and sought to satisfy themselves that Miss A was developing normally. They did not do so. We upheld the complaint.

However, the GP had already apologised for not personally examining the growth charts and arranging further action. The practice had reflected on the case and confirmed that they were now checking measurements and centile charts at the six to eight week assessment. We considered this action to have appropriately addressed the identified failings and we had no further recommendations to make.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his complaint. He had initially contacted the council for information about the named person scheme for children and was unhappy with the response he received. He then wrote to the council to complain about this. He did not receive a response to this complaint and emailed the council again to complain that they had not followed their complaints handling procedure. The council sent him a response to his initial complaint on the same day. They said that this had been completed several weeks earlier, but had not been issued due to an administrative oversight. They also apologised for this.

Mr C then wrote to the council to complain about the response. He said that it appeared to him that the council had simply backdated a letter and then pretended it had not been sent due to an administrative oversight. In response to this, the council wrote to him and said that they had progressed his complaint to stage 2 of their complaints process. Mr C subsequently phoned the council and said that he wanted his complaint about the delay in responding to his original complaint to be dealt with as a new complaint. The council then wrote to Mr C stating that it was their view that the points raised would be best considered under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure and as part of their consideration of the other issues he had raised.

We upheld Mr C's complaint due to the council's failure to send the original response to his complaint to him. We also found that the council should have been clearer to Mr C about how his subsequent complaints would be handled, although we found that it had been reasonable to deal with them under stage 2 of their complaints handling procedure. We were also satisfied that the council had apologised for these failings and had taken action to try to prevent similar problems from occurring.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about the way NHS 24 handled calls she made to them on two separate occasions. We took independent medical advice and found that when Ms C made her first call to NHS 24 to report symptoms she was experiencing, they failed to deal with her call in line with the appropriate protocol. The protocol said that staff should speak to a doctor as soon as possible. However, in Ms C's case, staff said that they would arrange for a nurse to call Ms C back within a three-hour timescale. Though Ms C was called by a nurse within that timescale, we found that it was likely that this delayed Ms C's admission to hospital. Although we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint, we were satisfied that NHS 24 has apologised for this and shared the learning from Ms C's complaint with staff.

Ms C also complained about the handling of two calls she made to NHS 24 almost a year later regarding symptoms she was experiencing. Staff initially said that someone would call her back within two hours. However, Ms C had to call them again, as she had not been called back within two hours and her symptoms had deteriorated. She was then referred to an out-of-hours service to be assessed by a GP. NHS 24 had accepted that the handling of the calls was not of the standard they expect from staff and that some of Ms C's symptoms should have been explored further. We therefore upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint. The board had apologised to Ms C for this and had taken action to prevent similar problems occurring.

In view of the action already taken by NHS 24, we did not make recommendations.