Upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about the time the board took to provide him with tests, referrals and a diagnosis. He was concerned that every time he was referred for tests or treatment he was placed back on the waiting list. He was of the view that the board failed to meet their obligations in terms of the required waiting times.

We found that the board's initial referral exceeded, by a few days, the 18 week NHS 'treatment to referral time' standard. A subsequent referral for an MRI scan (a scan used to diagnose health conditions that affect organs, tissue and bone) also exceeded this timescale, so we upheld the complaint. As the board had, however, already apologised to Mr C for the delay and taken steps to try and avoid similar future failures, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C was being treated for HIV (Human immunodeficiency virus - the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)). He was unhappy because the board sent his medication to a family member's home, rather than to his medical practice as requested. A family member opened the package and became aware of Mr C's HIV status. Mr C had not discussed this with his family, and it caused him and his family a great deal of upset and difficulty.

He complained to the board, who investigated and found that when he had asked for his medication be sent to his practice (which was in another board's area) the board's pharmacy services had said that they could not send medication to a GP outwith their board's area. Nursing staff had then contacted Mr C's consultant for advice, who said that the medication should be sent to Mr C's home address. However, pharmacy services unfortunately had the address of a family member on their database rather than Mr C's own address. They did not contact Mr C to check that the address was correct or that he was happy for the medication to be posted directly to him. As a result of these failings, the board upheld his complaint, apologised to him, and advised that they had introduced procedural changes to prevent this happening again.

Mr C remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us. We investigated and found that the board's explanation of what went wrong was correct. As they failed to check Mr C's address details or seek his consent to send the medication to his home address, we upheld his complaint. We also obtained details of the safeguards introduced to ensure that this does not happen again, and were satisfied that these were appropriate. For this reason, and because they had already apologised to Mr C for the significant distress this matter had caused, we made no recommendations for further action.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to follow the correct process when reviewing his supervision level. In particular, he said the prison updated their computer record before the relevant manager considered his written representations and signed off the paperwork.

In relation to the assignment of a supervision level, the prison rules confirm that the governor must consider any representations made by the prisoner before making a decision. In Mr C's case, that did not happen and the prison acknowledged this. In light of the failing identified in Mr C's case, we upheld his complaint. The prison advised that they had reviewed their procedure and confirmed that all potential increases in supervision level would not be amended on the computer record until prisoners' written representations had been considered and the relevant paper signed off by the appropriate manager.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland had not reasonably handled her concerns about her detention under the Mental Health Act. We explained to Ms C that we could not look at the matter of her detention, but we did look at how they handled her concerns. We found that, following receipt of Ms C's original letter in which she outlined these concerns, the commission requested further information so that they could make a decision about whether and how to deal with the issues she had raised. Ms C told us that she did not receive this letter and so went on to send three follow-up letter, but received no acknowledgement or response to these.

The commission then wrote to Ms C to clarify what information was required, and she provided this in a letter. In it she made it clear that she was unhappy with the handling of her correspondence and said she could not understand whether her letters had been received and why they had not generated any acknowledgement or response. She asked for all her complaints to be looked at together by a senior manager. Ms C again received no reply, and wrote again a month later. The commission did then respond to the issues she had raised and apologised for their failure to reply. Ms C was advised of her right to complain about the handling of her correspondence. She exercised that right and the commission upheld her complaint.

Our investigation also upheld Ms C's complaint. We found that it should have been clear on receiving her three follow-up letters that she had not received the letter requesting further information; so three opportunities to set the record straight were missed. When Ms C wrote to provide the information requested she then had to prompt the commission again by sending a follow-up letter. We found this unacceptable. We also found that the commission could have recognised Ms C's dissatisfaction earlier and should have dealt with the issues about their handling of her correspondence at an earlier stage under their complaints handling procedure.

We noted that the commission have taken the positive step of developing written guidance for staff on dealing with incoming correspondence. They had also apologised to Ms C on three occasions, so in the circumstances we had no further recommendations to make.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that after his father died, the housing association unreasonably pressurised him to clear the house and hand back the keys in an unacceptable timescale. When the association investigated Mr C's complaint, they found that their staff had not dealt with the matter in accordance with their policy, which said that when a tenant died and there was no-one else with a right to take on the tenancy, they would allow the relatives one week after the funeral to clear the property, or two weeks in total from the date of the tenant's death, whichever was more appropriate. The association apologised to him and took action to address the failings of their staff. Mr C was dissatisfied with the association's investigation of the matter and outcome, as no financial redress had been offered, which he said he had discussed with the association's director.

We found from our investigation that the association had conducted a thorough investigation, and that the outcome was appropriate. However, we upheld the complaint as there had been an error by the association staff who had asked about the return of the keys far too early, in fact on the day Mr C's father had died. Mr C had eventually been given ten days to clear the house, and although he complained that he had asked for longer, there was no evidence that this was the case. There had been discussion about financial redress which had been considered, but although Mr C had complained to the association that he had not had time to remove some items, he had not made a claim.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison lost some of his property. A visitor had handed in clothing and some coat hangers, which the prison logged as received. However, they did not reach Mr C, so he put in a missing property claim. He was unhappy with the outcome and complained to the prison. He was unhappy with their reply, and complained to us. He said that the prison had offered him compensation but that the offer had been withdrawn. He also complained about the time the prison took to consider this.

We found that the claim paperwork showed that the investigating officer had accepted that the items were logged as received by the prison, but not by Mr C. She had, therefore, recommended that compensation was offered. However, the officer who had logged them provided a written statement saying that the items were of a kind not allowed in prison, and were handed back to the visitor. In light of this, Mr C's claim was rejected. Although this decision was then reviewed and reversed, and compensation offered, the prison director opposed the reversal and the offer was then withdrawn again.

After we began our investigation, the prison reviewed their handling of the matter and acknowledged that this took too long. They noted that the main delays were caused by internal disagreements on whether or not to uphold Mr C's claim. They said that this was normal, but conceded that they should have been clearer with Mr C and told him what was happening. In recognition of the time delays, lack of clear evidence, and the complications surrounding the case, they reinstated their compensation offer.

We found that Mr C's property had been logged as received by the prison but not recorded as having been handed back to his visitor. However, the officer responsible had provided a statement saying that the items had been returned. We accepted that some internal disagreement might be reasonably expected where contradictory evidence exists but noted the prison's acknowledgement of their failings during the claim process. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaint. However, in light of the steps already taken by the prison to review the matter and reinstate their offer of compensation, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not notified him about a planning application for a neighbouring property. The adjoining property was being modified and Mr C explained that the first he knew of this was when building materials were delivered to his neighbour. Mr C was unhappy at not being notified as he said he would have objected to the application. Mr C complained to the council who acknowledged their error in not notifying him and apologised. Mr C also complained that his access rights (contained within his title deeds) had been restricted and that when the building work was done his property was damaged.

Our investigation found that the planning application had been submitted around the time that the responsibility for neighbour notification had transferred from the applicant to the council. In addition to accepting their error, the council explained to us that, as a result of Mr C’s complaint, they had added two administrative steps to their process to prevent this from happening again. We upheld Mr C’s complaint that the council had failed to notify him, but in view of what the council had already done to improve their process, we did not make any recommendations.

While we understood Mr C’s concerns, we were unable to interpret his title deeds for him or to recommend that the council address the issue of damage. Although they failed to notify Mr C of the application, they had not actually done the building work, and our role was restricted to investigating the lack of notification.

Summary

Mrs C complained about her treatment after a fall, in which she fractured her ankle. She said that she was not recalled to hospital for a follow-up appointment and that because of this staples in her wound were left in for more than two weeks longer than they should have been.

Our investigation upheld Mrs C's complaints. The board had accepted that when Mrs C was discharged from hospital no follow-up appointment was booked for her, so the staples were left in her wound for too long. Mrs C had also contracted a bacterial infection, but after taking advice from one of our medical advisers, we did not establish any clear evidential link between this and the fact that the staples were not removed earlier. As the board had already explained to Mrs C what had happened, and had apologised to her for their mistakes we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C said that the council did not follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaints about a refund of phone call costs incurred in reporting repairs.

Our investigation found that the council had already acknowledged their failings in this matter, explained what had gone wrong and apologised to Mr C. They said it was clear that a member of staff had not followed the correct procedures, and explained the training the staff member had since received. We upheld the complaint, but did not make any recommendation as the council had already taken appropriate action.

Summary

Mr A was in hospital for four months, and his daughter (Ms C) was unhappy about aspects of his nursing care during that time. Mr A was prescribed a low dose of madopar (a drug used to treat Parkinson's disease), which was increased two weeks later. The medical records show that his behaviour became increasingly problematic, and Ms C said that Mr A became very aggressive while taking the drug.

About two months later, Mr A was transferred to another ward contrary to the wishes of Ms C. Ms C said that nursing staff sat at a table during visiting time and failed to attend to her father's needs or communicate with the family. Mr A had three falls and Ms C said staff failed to explain why this happened or how he had a cut on his head, and that there was an unreasonable delay in swabbing the cut. Ms C was also concerned about the management of Mr A's skin condition.

After taking independent advice from our nursing adviser, we found that aspects of the nursing care provided to Mr A fell below a reasonable standard, and we upheld Ms C's complaint. However, the board had acknowledged the shortcomings in relation to communication and nursing staff availability during visiting time and had taken action on this. The adviser reviewed evidence from the board's audits and quality improvement plan and was of the view that they took sufficient action to address these shortcomings. We, therefore, did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

In relation to Mr A’s transfer from one ward to another, the adviser said that the decision was reasonable. The ward staff took the family's views into account, but there was a clear rationale for moving Mr A to a more appropriate setting. In relation to medication, we found that the prescription of madopar was reasonable.