Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to deal with his housing application appropriately, and that their response to his complaint was unreasonable. Mr C was formerly in the armed forces, and was of the view that the council's poor handling of his application showed they were prejudiced against former military personnel.

Mr C had a waiting time ('credit' that decides where the person will be on the housing list) of just over 30 years, in relation to his application for a council house. This was because housing applicants who have left the armed forces within three years of making an application may have their application backdated to the date they entered the armed forces. However, even with 30 years waiting time, Mr C's application was ranked below those with priority status. Priority status can only be awarded after an assessment, and is normally based on factors such as preventing long term hospital and care home admissions, the need for adaptations to a property, homelessness, or overcrowding. The council's policy, based on an agreement with the armed forces, did not provide former armed forces personnel with enhanced eligibility for housing; it simply provided additional waiting time.

We found that the council had wrongly cancelled Mr C's housing account for 16 months. During that time, Mr C kept bidding for houses on the council's website, but he was unaware that these were not being considered as he did not receive an error message. The council had acknowledged that his account was cancelled but said that this did not disadvantage him in any way. We could not, however, see how they reached this conclusion.

We found that the council dealt reasonably with some aspects of Mr C's complaint,but did not respond to others. They also provided us with information that they should have given Mr C when they were dealing with it. We could not see any evidence of prejudice against Mr C because he was formerly in the armed forces. However, we upheld his complaints, as we had found administrative failing in the cancellation of his housing account, and in how they dealt with his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence to support the assertion that the cancellation of Mr C's housing account meant that he was in no way disadvantaged;
• provide us with evidence to show that the failing that led to the cancellation of Mr C's housing account has been corrected;
• provide Mr C, copied to us, with a clear statement of his current status as a housing applicant;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to deal with all aspects of his complaint reasonably; and
• remind housing staff of the Employee's Guide to the Complaints Handling Procedure, as issued by our Complaints Standards Authority.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council did not follow procedures when dealing with a statutory notice served on their former property. A statutory notice was served in 2007 for maintenance work on the property, a tenement building with eight flats. The property owners were unable to reach agreement about carrying out the work, and the council were asked to take over the project. After a tendering process, a contractor was appointed and scaffolding erected. There was a full survey, additional works were found to be needed and the cost of the project increased substantially. An emergency statutory notice was served and property owners were billed retrospectively. When the bill was issued, Mr C and Ms C found that the total cost of the project had risen by more than £20,000.

They complained that the initial survey was carried out from street level by a council employee who was not a qualified surveyor. They did not think it possible for an accurate assessment to be completed from the ground, and said that the notice should not have been served until the scaffolding was erected and the full inspection carried out. They also complained about the escalation in the scale and cost of the work required on the property.

We found that the council had generally followed the procedure that they had in place at the time for serving statutory notices and for taking over the management of repairs. However, we found that non-emergency works were inappropriately included in the emergency notice and that the property owners were not properly told about the additional works identified or the costs they would be expected to cover. Given the sums involved, we were critical that there was no detailed record of the surveys, and of a lack of evidence of the work that was needed.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reimburse Mr C and Ms C's share of the administration fees for work carried out under the statutory notices;
• apologise to Mr C and Ms C for the issues highlighted in our investigation;
• consider reviewing how they compile and record evidence of the work required on properties in cases where they are asked to take over the management of repairs required by statutory notices; and
• remind their staff of the importance of communicating any project developments to property owners, particularly when these will result in additional costs being passed on to them.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not collected his recycling bins for ten weeks over the festive period, and were ignoring his calls for an uplift. The council told him that there had been a backlog over that period. They arranged for an uplift, apologised for the delay and said that they would monitor this to ensure he was receiving regular collections. Despite this, they then failed to collect his bin in the eight weeks after his complaint, and he complained to us.

After we got in touch with the council about this, they wrote to Mr C to explain that the reason for the problems was that they did not have a key to the back court area. The refuse depot had a key, but the recycling depot had misplaced it. They arranged for a copy to be made, allowing the recycling team access to the bin area. They apologised for their service and the problems Mr C had experienced and said they would monitor the situation to ensure he received regular collections.

The council's policies say that recycling should be collected at least once a month and this did not happen. We noted that if when Mr C first complained the council had explained and apologised as they did later, and had they effectively monitored his collections as they said they would, he might not have needed to complain to us. As his recycling was not collected in accordance with the council's policies, we upheld the complaint but because they had already explained and apologised, we made only one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• monitor Mr C's recycling collections for the next three months to ensure that he receives regular monthly uplifts, and provide us with evidence of this monitoring on completion of this process.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, fell and injured his hand. He complained that, after seeing the doctor the following day, he had to wait a further five days to be taken for an x-ray. In responding to his complaint, the board advised that his referral was treated as non-urgent, and that an appointment was made for him at the earliest opportunity.

We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers, who is a GP. He noted that Mr C had a suspected scaphoid fracture (a fracture of one of the wrist bones that sits at the base of the thumb). He explained that this can often be difficult to diagnose. However, he considered it highly unusual for an initial x-ray to be delayed for five days. Most NHS users would have been x-rayed on the day of the injury or the day after. He said that it appeared that the delay in Mr C's case might have been to allow the prison to make arrangements to escort him to hospital. Although the injury was correctly managed by ensuring that Mr C had pain relief and ordering the x-ray, our adviser considered the delay in taking him for the x-ray to be unreasonable, as in his view it appeared to have been purely for operational reasons. We accepted this advice and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in arranging for him to receive an x-ray; and
• inform us of the steps they intend to take to ensure that patients with possible fractures are assessed in good time in future.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) woke with an inflamed eye. She bought eye drops, but the symptoms got much worse overnight, and she woke the following day with pain, swelling and blurred vision. She went to A&E at Monklands Hospital, where anaesthetic was applied. A doctor examined her, identified a lesion (an area of damage) and said that as Miss A normally wore contact lenses, this would be treated with antibiotics not routinely stocked in A&E. The doctor spoke by phone to the junior ophthalmologist (eye doctor) on call, who said that Miss A should start using an ointment similar to the drops, but stronger, and arranged her an ophthalmology clinic appointment for the next morning.

When the anaesthetic wore off, the pain returned and Miss A contacted her father, who took her to an eye infirmary, where it was confirmed that she had bacterial keratitis (infection of the cornea - the transparent front part of the eye), and she was admitted for intensive antibiotic therapy. Mr C said hospital staff told his daughter that the delay in starting treatment had badly damaged her eye. Her treatment was continuing and if this failed to improve her vision, she might need a corneal transplant. Mr C complained about the care and treatment his daughter received at Monklands and about the way the board handled his complaint, saying they did not fully address it and blamed Miss A for the outcome of inappropriate treatment.

We took independent advice on this case from two of our medical advisers, specialists in emergency medicine and opthalmology, and upheld both complaints. Our advisers said that Miss A's symptoms and history should have triggered an immediate review by the on-call ophthalmologist, and that the decision to change her medication from drops to similar, stronger ointment and review her in 24 hours was not reasonable. We were critical that, given the information the doctor provided on the phone, the on-call ophthalmologist did not see Miss A as a matter of urgency, and that they advised her to use the ointment when the drops had not been effective. This led to a significant injustice to Miss A, who now has a degree of irreversible damage to her vision.

We found that the board completed their investigation and drafted a response without input from the relevant clinical expert. The investigation was not in line with the NHS complaints procedure, and they failed to address the main issues. There was an inference in the response that Miss A should bear some responsibility for what happened. We did not consider it reasonable for the board to suggest that, having been assessed in A&E and told to come back for a review, she should have returned a few hours later with the same symptoms and expected different treatment. The board in fact failed to consider whether the initial treatment was adequate, and we took the view that it was lack of ophthalmic care that led to the sequence of events. Miss A, quite reasonably, did not go to A&E the next day because when she discussed the problem with her family, they appropriately decided that her condition was not being adequately managed and reasonably sought medical care elsewhere.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• ensure this complaint is raised with relevant staff as part of their annual appraisal and address any training needs;
• review their complaints process to establish when a complaint should trigger a significant event analysis in light of our adviser's comments;
• review the out-of-hours ophthalmic care at the hospital to ensure an adequate level of care is provided;
• ensure that the failings in complaints handling are raised with relevant staff; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that his front tooth had been extracted unnecessarily and that his dentist had refused to provide him with the type of bridge work to replace it that he wanted. This was on the grounds that Mr C's oral hygiene was too poor to allow it to be carried out successfully, which Mr C disputed.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. He advised that the x-ray of Mr C's tooth did not show a clinical need for removal. He said that the x-ray did not differ substantially from an x-ray taken a year earlier, and this showed there had been little change in the prognosis for the tooth. The adviser said the tooth should have been allowed to remain in place and then monitored for any further deterioration.

The adviser also noted that Mr C had, following a change of dental practice, been provided with the bridgework treatment he wanted. The adviser said that the clinical notes did not support the refusal to provide the type of bridgework Mr C requested, as the gum disease he had would have benefited from this type of treatment. He also said that the new dentist's decision to provide this treatment suggested that Mr C's gum disease should not have prevented the treatment being carried out.

We accepted this advice and found that Mr C had had his tooth extracted unnecessarily and should not have been refused the type of bridgework he requested to replace it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the dentist:

• issue an apology in writing to Mr C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• refund Mr C the cost of the extraction and the cost of the bridgework carried out by his new dentist as a consequence of the unnecessary tooth extraction;
• provide us with an undertaking that he will address the concerns raised in this complaint through his continuing professional development (including consideration of whether it would be appropriate to undergo refresher radiography training); and
• confirm that he will ensure that patients are informed of any conditions that may impact on their treatment and that these discussions are recorded in the patient's records.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained to the board about how a bone marrow sampling procedure was carried out on Mrs C. Some weeks after making the complaint Mrs C died. Mr C felt the board's response to their complaint was inadequate, and so he complained to us.

We looked at information from Mr C and from the board. We found that Mr and Mrs C did not make a written complaint to the board, but spoke to a member of staff who made a note of the complaint. The board investigated it, and wrote to Mrs C. Their letter to Mrs C mainly contained apologies rather than explanations, particularly apologising that staff did not acknowledge sooner the level of pain and discomfort she experienced during the procedure.

As there was no written complaint, we could not say with certainty exactly what answers Mr and Mrs C told the board they wanted about the procedure. We found, however, that much of the detail the board gave us when we contacted them was considered during their investigation of the complaint, but was not in their letter. Given this, we decided it would have been reasonable for the board to have included some of this in their letter, to reassure Mrs C that the procedure was carried out in line with normal standards. Their letter did not achieve an appropriate balance between apology and explanation. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• ensure notes made by staff of verbal complaints contain sufficient detail on the specific points of complaint to enable the board to respond to those points in their letters; and
• consider how the evidence gathered during the investigation of Mr and Mrs C's complaint could have, empathetically, been included in the board's response letter to Mrs C.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream charged him for two meters in his business property. Business Stream had sent Mr C his first bill six months after he moved in. He noticed that there were two meters registered, which meant that he was paying two sets of fixed charges for them. He applied to have one of the meters removed, but was unhappy that this was only done six months later. Business Stream then charged him for the full period that the second meter was in place.

We found that there had been two separate water supplies to Mr C's property when he moved in and two meters were required to ensure that all of the consumption was captured. When Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, he was told that he would have to make changes to the internal pipework to ensure that all of the consumption was captured, as internal pipework is the responsibility of the property owner. Several visits were required to the property before it was agreed that the required changes had been done and the second meter could be removed.

We were satisfied that two meters had been required, as there were two separate water supplies before the internal pipework was changed. It was, therefore, reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Mr C's initial charges based on two meters. However, when Mr C applied to have the second meter removed, there were delays in progressing the application, and we upheld Mr C's complaint for this reason. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream agreed to waive the fixed charges for the second meter from the date Mr C applied for it to be removed.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• waive the fixed charges for the second meter from the date Mr C applied for this to be removed; and
• issue a written apology to him for the delays in taking action to have the second meter removed.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A) about a bill he received from Business Stream. Mr A owned a small chalet, which he occasionally let out. It was not used for more than a few months each year, and the water was switched off during the winter. Mr A had a water meter installed in 2008, which should have been read twice a year.

At first Mr A received estimated bills, which were very low. The first actual reading was in November 2009, and confirmed the low water usage. From then until March 2013, however, no readings were taken and Mr A continued to receive low estimated bills. The March 2013 reading suggested much higher water usage than expected but, as it was not put on Business Stream's systems, Mr A was not told. The next reading was in August 2013, after which he was billed for more than £4,000. After Mr A phoned them to complain, Business Stream acknowledged that they had not read the meter for nearly four years, and reduced his bill by about £2,000. They did not, however, investigate why there was such a high reading on the meter. Mr A had checked and said that there were no obvious leaks and no leaks had been repaired.

We upheld Ms C's complaints. We criticised Business Stream for not taking meter readings for so long, and that when they finally did take a reading it was not put on their systems. Had Business Stream applied their policies properly, the excess consumption should have been identified within six months, and could have been investigated and resolved within a further six months. We were also critical that Business Stream did not contact Mr A to explain what had happened, and that they did not investigate why the meter was showing such high water use. We made recommendations to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that Business Stream:

• take steps to ensure that all meter readings are submitted onto their systems within four days, as stipulated in their metering policy;
• check the accuracy of Mr A's meter, cover all costs related to this check, and based on the findings of the check, apply either recommendation A or B below;
• (A) if the meter is found to be inaccurate, credit Mr A's account for the full cost of excess water consumption across the period from November 2009 to the present, and provide evidence of this; or (B) if the meter is found to be accurate, credit Mr A's account for the excess water consumption between November 2010 and August 2013, based on average consumption from November 2009 to August 2013, and provide evidence of this;
• review the clarity of their bills to ensure that it is clear when a bill is based on two estimated readings; and
• apologise to Mr A for the failings identified in our investigation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, claimed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly investigate his claim for property that went missing when he was removed from his cell. He said that staff left the cell door open and other prisoners had taken his property. The SPS told us that Mr C's cell door was locked after he was removed from it. They also said that they had cleared the cell and listed the items that were removed from it. The items that belonged to Mr C were held in the reception area for him, and the other items were confiscated.

The items Mr C had claimed compensation for had been in his use before he was removed from the cell. There was no evidence that staff left the door open or that the SPS were responsible for the items that went missing. However, we found that staff delayed in investigating Mr C's claim, and that two of the items they confiscated did in fact belong to Mr C. We brought this to the SPS's attention and they said that they would compensate him for these, as they had been destroyed. In view of this and the delay in investigating the claim, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings identified; and
• take steps to ensure that other prisoners do not face similar delays when they make claims for missing property.