Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C reported missed collections of his recycling bins to the council on their web portal. He said that sometimes the problem was rectified within one week, however he felt that over time, reporting the missed collections did not seem to make a difference. Mr C raised a formal complaint with the council and the council responded by apologising and advising that all refuse had been uplifted from his property. They explained the problem was due to an operative error.

Mr C requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The council issued their final response and they explained that the depot had been in the process of reviewing their recycling routes and they anticipated that the issues would be resolved. Mr C contacted us and told us that the council had failed to collect the recycling bins at his property on at least seven occasions over the previous six months.

We found that the council had unreasonably failed to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and we found little evidence that the council took adequate steps to prevent this from happening. We also found that they had failed to properly investigate Mr C's complaints, as their responses to his complaints did not provide reasons for the missed bin collections. We upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide him with a copy of the schedule for bin collections at his property.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks to ensure that bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported missed bin collections to Glasgow City Council and subsequently raised the issue as a formal complaint. In their final response to Mr C's complaint, the council apologised and advised that all refuse was collected as requested and that their collection crews had been reminded to ensure all waste is uplifted. When Mr C brought his complaint to us, he told us that the bins had not been collected, contrary to the council’s letter. Mr C reported further missed collections and the council responded advising they would pass this onto the local depot and that he had completed their complaints process. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to collect his bins and that they did not adequately investigate his complaints.

The council told us that they were experiencing a higher than normal level of requests and complaints at the time that Mr C raised his complaint. They also said they had to bring in additional workers who were unfamiliar with the routes. Despite the council investigating the complaint, we found that they continued to fail to collect Mr C's bins over a protracted period of time and failed to provide an explanation for this. We upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Mr C with an apology and provide a copy of the schedule for bins collections.
• Monitor the area for a period of eight weeks and ensure the bins are collected on schedule.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Take steps to ensure that all complaints handling staff are familiar with the complaints handling procedure, and identify and address any additional training needs.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C moved to a new property through a mutual exchange. She complained to the council about repairs that were outstanding and the overall condition of the house. The council arranged for a building condition survey to be carried out, and it found that a number of significant structural repairs had to be carried out, including an internal wall which had to be rebuilt. Ms C had been told by the council, prior to moving in, that the wall would be rebuilt and that all outstanding repairs would be completed.

Ms C was also concerned that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before she accepted it. Ms C complained to us that the council unreasonably failed to follow correct policy and procedure regarding the mutual exchange, and that they failed to ensure the property was made available in an appropriate standard of repair. Ms C also complained that the council unreasonably delayed in carrying out the agreed repairs to the property in line with their policies.

In response to our investigation, the council told us that it was not standard procedure for a tenant to be offered the opportunity to view the property before a mutual exchange. However, they have since updated their policy to ensure that this happens. We found that even though the mutual exchange inspection by the housing officer confirmed that the property was in good condition, the property should not, in fact, have been approved for exchange. We also found that the council unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs for Ms C and that the council had acknowledged this. We upheld Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for not making appropriate checks to ensure the property was up to standard and for the delay in completing repairs. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The inspection policy for mutual exchanges should ensure that properties are properly inspected by a qualified officer and provided to tenants in a structurally sound condition.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C reported concerns to the council about out of control dogs and possible breaches of a dog control notice. He was dissatisfied with the council's actions in relation to the reports and continued to communicate with them. He said that a council officer responded inappropriately in an email to him, implicitly threatening legal action. He complained to the council about these matters and the council responded saying that they considered that their actions had been reasonable. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

We found that the council failed to reasonably consider his reports or to give him reasonable advice or information about their consideration of his reports. We found that the response to the email was inappropriate. We found that the council's handling of Mr C's complaints was not reasonable as they did not follow their complaints handling procedure and made statements that led to confusion about their powers. We upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to reasonably investigate his reports and for the inappropriate content of an email they sent to Mr C. Further apologise for failing to reasonably handle or respond to Mr C's complaints. These apologies should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• In response to every report of out of control dogs or potential breaches of dog control notices, council staff should properly advise members of the public making such reports about:
• whether reports should be made to other authorities
• what kind of evidence the council requires to take action
• what investigations the council intend to take and the reasons for those
• the progress of such considerations or investigations
• the conclusions of such considerations or investigations and as much information as possible about what further action they intend to take.
• Council staff should be aware of the council’s expected standards of communication with members of the public.
• The council’s written statements should be clear and unambiguous.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be properly acknowledged, responded to, investigated and followed up on, in line with the council’s complaints handling procedure.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C made a complaint to her housing association that her neighbour's dog was barking excessively and that this was causing her distress. Ms C advised that she was suffering ill health and was having difficulty sleeping at night due to the dog barking. Ms C raised these concerns with her housing officer but was unhappy with the level of action taken by the housing officer to reduce the impact of the anti-social behaviour.

The association worked with the neighbours to try and ensure that appropriate action was taken. The association were advised by the neighbour's family that the dog was being walked regularly and kept in the bedroom at night. The association also contacted other residents within the building to attempt to corroborate Ms C's complaints. They did not receive any responses. Ms C also became upset when the housing officer included details in a letter to a nurse involved in Ms C's care of an alleged incident where Ms C was said to have shouted and swore at her neighbour. Ms C denied that this happened and was deeply upset that the housing officer included mention of this in the letter.

Ms C complained to us about the housing association's action in response to her complaint of anti-social behaviour, and about their handling of her complaint. We obtained information from the association about their relevant policies and procedures, as well as copies of correspondence and internal case notes. We found that the action taken regarding the complaint of anti-social behaviour was reasonable as the association had spoken with the relevant parties and sought to ensure measures were put in place to reduce the barking. They also sought corroboration from other residents in the building. We did not, however, accept that the details of an alleged incident should have been included in correspondence to both Ms C and her nurse, as the allegation was unsubstantiated. We upheld this part of the complaint.

We were also critical of the complaints handling process, as the association had not identified and separated Ms C's complaint into that of anti-social behaviour, and that of service delivery. As such, the complaint response did not address the latter concerns. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Ms C and apologise for including negative information that was not relevant in their letter to the nurse involved in her care.
• Write to Ms C and apologise for not dealing with her complaints about their service in line with their complaints policy.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff at the association should be aware of the complaints policy and know how to distinguish between neighbour complaints and complaints about services provided.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C's GP referred her to St John's Hospital for a blood transfusion because she was anaemic, had chest pains and was breathless. However, Mrs C said that when she was in the hospital the blood transfusion did not happen. She was discharged and told that an urgent endoscopy (a procedure where a tube-like instrument is put into the body to look inside) and colonoscopy (an examination of the bowel with a camera on a flexible tube) would be arranged for her. Mrs C said that she did not hear anything further and that the following month she was admitted to hospital again. She had a scan which showed a large tumour and she was diagnosed with bowel cancer. Mrs C complained that she was not properly cared for and treated during her first attendance at hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant gastroenterologist. We learned that Mrs C did not have a blood transfusion because her blood flow was not compromised and she showed no symptoms of active bleeding. While we found it was reasonable to discharge Mrs C home with plans for urgent endoscopic investigations, the board subsequently failed to deal with this as a matter of urgency. We found that this was unreasonable and we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mrs C for the delay;
• confirm the situation with regards to waiting times for urgent endoscopies; and
• ensure that, in the event that they cannot address the waiting times for urgent endoscopies, alternative scans, such as CT scans on the colon, are made available. This new protocol should be brought to the attention of referring clinicians.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he returned to prison having undergone surgery, he was not prescribed with appropriate pain relief.

While in hospital, Mr C had been prescribed dihydrocodeine and paracetamol (pain relief medications). However, on returning to the prison, clinicians prescribed Mr C with co-codamol (a mixture of codeine and paracetamol). The prescription was not issued until after the pharmacy cut-off time and so Mr C only received paracetamol until the following morning when he was given a one-off dose of dihydrocodeine.

We took independent medical advice. The adviser's view was that Mr C had not been provided with sufficient pain relief and that the delay was unreasonable. We accepted this advice and upheld the complaint.

We also found that the board's response to the complaint was contradictory. They had told Mr C at stage one of the complaints process that they would take action to ensure there was not a repeat of the situation. However, when we contacted the board to find out what action they had taken, they said there were no actions taken as the delay was unavoidable. We were critical of this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the delay in prescribing appropriate pain relief and for the contradictory response to his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients should receive appropriate medication when returning to prison after surgery.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The board’s decision on a complaint should be clear and, if it differs to the view reached at stage one, this should be explained in the response.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the board had unreasonably delayed in providing treatment for his eye condition at Hairmyres Hospital.

We took independent advice from a consultant who specialises in the medical and surgical treatment of eye disease. The advice we received was that there had been no unreasonable delay in the treatment provided to Mr C, but that there had been an unreasonable delay in the following up of Mr C's eye condition. However, we found that this delay had not resulted in deterioration of Mr C's vision. Taking account of the evidence and the advice we received that Mr C should have been followed up more closely, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failure to follow-up his eye condition.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that he, his wife and daughter were removed from the practice's list. National Services Scotland (NSS) wrote to Mr C to say that his GP practice had asked NSS to remove him, his wife and their daughter from their patient list because of a breakdown in the doctor/patient relationship. Mr C said it was not clear why they had all been removed and that he had not been given a warning. Mr C believed it was because of a complaint he had made previously to us about the practice. As a result of the decision, Mr C and his family were distressed and left without the care of a GP practice while they found a new practice.

We took independent advice from a GP adviser. The advice we accepted was that there was no evidence that the practice had complied with their contractual regulations and General Medical Council guidance. We found that there had been an appointment between Mr C and practice nurses that was difficult for all concerned and that aspects of the appointment were challenging for staff. However, having reviewed in detail the witness statements and the entries in Mr C's medical records, we were not satisfied that it was reasonable for the practice to remove Mr C without first warning him that his behaviour was causing staff concern and giving him an opportunity to help restore the professional relationships.

We found that the practice had failed to give him an open and transparent response on their reasons for having him removed and that, as a result, he was concerned that he was removed because he had made a complaint. It is also of concern that the practice failed to take all reasonable steps to restore the professional relationship. We were not satisfied that the professional relationship with the practice had broken down to such an extent following the appointment with practice nurses that it affected the standard of clinical care provided, and so we found it to be unreasonable that Mr C was removed from the list. Similarly, there was no evidence that it was reasonable for the practice to remove his wife and child too. We upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for unreasonably removing him, his wife and his daughter from the practice list. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Staff should comply with the guidance and regulations on responding to staff concerns about patient behaviour.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the care his wife (Mrs A) received at Aberdeen Maternity Hospital after she became unwell following delivery of their child by caesarean section. Three days after the procedure, Mrs A required emergency surgery for a perforated bowel, resulting in a temporary ileostomy (where an opening is made in the abdomen to allow waste to pass out of the body) and further surgery to reverse this, which caused her a difficult and protracted recovery period. Mr C raised concern that they had been told by a doctor that the complications had arisen because the bowel had been accidently stitched to the caesarean section wound.

We took independent advice from a consultant obstetrician and a consultant general surgeon. We found that the consent form Mrs A signed, with the assistance of a doctor, agreeing to the caesarean section was not fully completed and did not warn her of the rare but recognised risk of bowel injury, which we were critical of. We also considered that it was likely that the bowel had been caught at the time of stitching, which meant that it was unlikely an adequate check of the wound was carried out by a second doctor at the time of the procedure. We upheld the complaint and made a number of recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs A for the failings identified in relation to the consent process and her caesarean section. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Patients undergoing an elective caesarean section should be fully informed of the possible complication and risk of bowel injury and give clear, informed consent.
• All relevant sections on the consent form should be fully completed.
• The doctor who performed the surgery should reflect on the clinical incident at their appraisal to identify any training needs to ensure the matter does not recur.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.