Upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to handle his complaints appropriately. He said that they were hampering his access to the complaints procedure.

When we investigated this, the prison acknowledged that there was a delay in responding to one complaint and that they had also misplaced another. Because of that, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We did not, however, make any recommendations as we did not find evidence to suggest the prison were suppressing his access to the complaints procedure. We also pointed out to Mr C that the way in which he was submitting his frequent complaints appeared to be impacting on the prison's ability to handle them appropriately.

Summary

Ms C raised objections with the council about the proposed building of a house in the area beyond her garden. One of her objections was in relation to the distance between her house and the proposed house. A council report to the planning committee said that revisions to the application had ensured a minimum separation distance of 15 metres from the nearest house. The committee considered and approved the application. Ms C complained to the council that there were less than 15 metres between her house and the proposed house and that no planning conditions had been made to address this. The council's response acknowledged that the distance quoted in the report was incorrect and apologised for this but noted that the scale drawings showed the correct distances and had been available at the committee meeting.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who reviewed the information, including the committee report and layout plan. He said that accurate distance statements existed elsewhere in the report and in the drawings, and explained that it was clear from the papers presented to the committee that the proposed development was not square on to Ms C's property. His view was that the committee was most unlikely to have been misled by the error.

The council had acknowledged the error and, therefore, we upheld the complaint. However, in light of the fact that the council had already apologised to Ms C, and that the adviser felt that it was most unlikely that the committee would have been misled, we decided that no recommendations were needed.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board had not provided him with written confirmation of his blood test results. When he attended hospital, he had undergone a test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but the copy of his results that he had obtained did not mention this. After he contacted the board to complain, they sent him a further copy of his test results but again there was no indication that the test for DVT had been performed.

During our investigation, we established that there are two methods of reporting test results, one of which contains fuller information than the other. Unfortunately, Mr C had not been provided with the full version. The board asked that we apologise to Mr C on their behalf, and told us that they had reminded staff of their responsibilities in this respect. We also provided Mr C with a full copy of the test results.

Summary

After Mr C fell downstairs, he was admitted to a local hospital, where a scan did not show any fractures. However, the next morning he had no feeling in his legs and he was transferred to a second hospital, where a consultant interpreted a further emergency scan as showing only degenerative changes in his spine. Mr C was later referred elsewhere, where he was finally diagnosed with an undisplaced fracture (a break in the bone, where the two parts of the bone are still aligned) of his spine. He now has to use a wheelchair.

His wife (Mrs C) complained about Mr C's care and treatment at the second hospital. She was concerned that he had not been handled and moved appropriately and that this could have affected the outcome for him. She was unhappy that his undisplaced fracture had not been diagnosed and that he was not kept lying down and in a neck brace.

To investigate the complaint, we considered all the relevant documentation, including the complaints correspondence and Mr C's medical records. We also obtained independent advice from two of our medical advisers, a consultant neurosurgeon and a consultant diagnostic and interventional neuroradiologist. The advice received confirmed that the board missed an undisplaced fracture of a vertebra (a bone of the spine) which should have been detected when interpreting the scan in the second hospital. The adviser commented that, despite this, Mr C had been managed as if he had had a spinal injury. The adviser said, however, that the damage to Mr C's spine had already occurred before he was admitted to the second hospital and that the treatment would not have affected Mr C's outcome. We upheld Mrs C's complaint, but as the board had already admitted that there were failures in the way they cared for and treated Mr C, and had taken action to address this, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that his water bills had been inaccurate and too confusing to follow. For example, at one point he thought his account was in credit but he then received a reminder for payment. Our investigation revealed that there had been errors on the account and a lack of good communication with Mr C about them. For example, when an error was identified and put right on a later invoice, the charges on that later invoice were not made clear to him, so he was unaware that they were caused by correcting the earlier error. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, as we were satisfied that Business Stream had now put all errors right, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C said that the council had not reasonably consulted with him over the timing of major improvement works at his home. Mr C told us that he is a shift worker and often needs to sleep through the day. He said that tradesmen turned up at his home unannounced one Saturday in spite of a prior agreement that work would start the following Monday. The tradesman made noise that woke Mr C up, and he told us that he could not finish his shift later that night. Mr C complained to the council, as he understood that they should have asked his permission before sending tradesmen at a weekend. More tradesmen arrived at Mr C's property the following Saturday. He said that he was not given enough notice of this visit, as a card was only put through the door late on the Friday. Mr C's wife had contacted the council and said she was assured that the work would not go ahead, but the tradesmen still turned up next day. Mr C was also unhappy that workers came after 17:00 to remove scaffolding, and he was repeatedly asked to move his vehicle from the driveway whilst he was having his dinner. He said that when he refused, the scaffolders used lifting equipment to carry the scaffolding over his vehicle.

We upheld Mr C's complaint because tradesmen should not have attended Mr C's property at a time other than had been mutually agreed. We also found that the council missed opportunities to clarify their position in respect of weekend working when they reached an agreement with Mr C about the timing of the work and on receipt of his complaint. However, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. We did not find fault in respect of the visit after 17:00, as there was no evidence that Mr C had been advised that work on site would stop after this, and it appeared to have been an assumption on his part.

Summary

Ms C complained to the board about a possible breach of confidentiality caused by automated messages which had been left on the family's landline phone. Ms C heard no more until the board sent her a formal response to her complaint some six months later. The response explained that the automated service had been suspended until new procedures could be installed to prevent possible breaches of confidentiality.

Our investigation found that the board had treated Ms C's complaint as a return complaint rather than a new one, and that the delayed response was compounded by a period of high numbers of staff absences. We upheld the complaint but made no recommendations as the board had recently formally apologised to Ms C and provided detailed explanation of the action taken to prevent a repeat occurrence.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled his claim for compensation after he damaged his suit on a protruding screw in a council-owned building. He also complained about their decision to limit the sum they agreed to pay him to the cost of replacing his jacket, rather than the whole suit, about their failure to respond to email correspondence, about the reasons they gave for delay in progressing his claim and said there was a failure to respond to his complaint accurately and promptly.

We found that there was a delay in assessing his claim. The reason for this was the delay in receiving witness statements from the local service. Because of this delay, and because they failed to meet their own time targets, we upheld this aspect of his complaint. We found that the council did respond fully, and accurately, to his complaint. However, because they failed to advise him how to progress it to the next stage, and at the final stage failed to meet their own timescales, we also upheld this aspect of his complaint. As, however, the council acknowledged and apologised for both delays, and as they have now introduced a new complaints process, we made no recommendations.

Although Mr C was dissatisfied with the amount the council agreed to pay to compensate him, we agreed with the council that the complaints process was not the way to challenge this, as the question of legal liability is one for the courts to consider.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Ms A). Ms A has a disability and Mr C is her main carer. When Ms A presented herself to the council as homeless, they placed her in temporary accommodation. Mr C was concerned that the accommodation was not suited to his daughter's needs and he was also unhappy as he felt that the council did not attend appropriately to problems that Ms A encountered while in that accommodation.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had allocated Ms A a temporary property which, in the circumstances, was the most suitable one available. There had, however, been a delay in providing further required adaptations. The council had recognised that they did not carry out equality impact assessments on their temporary accommodation, and had since put this in place. They had also added a new unit to their temporary accommodation facilities, fitted with aids and adaptations. We also found that although the council had responded reasonably when repairs were reported to be needed, there had been a problem with accumulation of rubbish outside the property, which had resulted in a number of problems for Ms A. We noted, however, that the council had taken appropriate action to stop this happening again and so we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not given clear reasons for refusing his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. There is guidance published by the Scottish Government which sets out the process for councils to follow.

Our investigation found that the council had not clearly explained to Mr C why they considered his application to be ineligible (which was because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit and had not met the qualifying conditions).

Even when asked to provide a clearer explanation the council failed to tell Mr C what information they had taken into account or how they had used the government guidance in arriving at a decision. Nor had they told him whether his application was considered to be high, medium or low priority as they should have.

We upheld Mr C's complaint and found some of the conditions being applied were too narrow compared to Scottish Government guidance - in particular, the definition of ‘a family.’ We did not make any recommendations, however, as the council had already made improvements to their handling of applications, including their definitions of qualifying categories. The council also accepted that the explanations given could have been better and have taken steps to improve the decision letters sent to applicants.