Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained about how the council acted in response to her concerns about an aerial mast in her neighbour's garden, and about their handling of her complaint about this.

We obtained independent planning advice on the complaint from one of our advisers. The council had decided not to take enforcement action against Ms C's neighbour, and taking into account the advice we received, we accepted that this decision was reasonable. The evidence, however, showed a number of failings by the council in handling Ms C's planning enforcement complaint. These included failing to provide a timely response, unreasonably acting on personal information and pre-warning Ms C's neighbour of the initial visit by the planning enforcement officer. On balance, we considered that the council did not act reasonably in respect of Ms C's concerns about the mast.

In terms of the overall handling of Ms C's complaint, we were concerned that when Ms C indicated that she was dissatisfied with the service provided by the council's planning enforcement staff, the council in some of their responses failed to correctly recognise when her planning enforcement complaint became a formal complaint. It was only through Ms C's persistence that this was rectified.

We considered that, given the significance of the overall complaints handling issue described above, on balance, the council failed to reasonably handle Ms C's complaint about the planning enforcement service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• feed back the failings identified to the staff involved to try to prevent a future occurrence;
• ensure that in future full records are kept of site visits in accordance with the council's planning enforcement charter;
• provide us with documentary evidence that they have reviewed their Charter to make it clear that staff should not make contact with third parties during enforcement investigations; and
• provide Ms C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C was excluded from all the leisure facilities operated by the trust after an incident at one of the centres, which involved a member of staff. He complained that the investigation into his complaint about being excluded failed to take account of all the evidence.

We found that the decision to exclude Mr C appeared to have been taken on an arbitrary basis at the discretion of senior staff within the trust, and that they put no time-frame on his exclusion. The trust told us that they did not have a particular policy about excluding customers. We also found evidence that their investigation was not completed properly, because they did not clarify with Mr C what he was complaining about, and the evidence on which they relied in coming to their decision was incomplete, informal or unavailable. We upheld his complaints and made relevant recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the trust:

• prioritise formulating appropriate policy and procedures on the handling of complaints about unacceptable behaviour by customers, and the penalties if a complaint is upheld;
• consider the requirement for any complaint about a customer to be put to him/her in writing, providing advice of the right to make representations and a deadline for the submission, and an explanation of how any investigation will be conducted;
• set timescales for the length of time an exclusion will be in place when the trust have decided to exclude a customer from their facilities; and
• revisit the current situation on Mr C's exclusion in the light of the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C told us he had raised concerns about the behaviour, actions and attitudes of a number of council staff towards him. The council said they did not consider the complaints handling procedure to be the appropriate process to investigate his concerns and that they had been looked at under internal management policies instead. Mr C was unhappy with this decision and complained to us.

We looked at the model complaints handling procedure on which all councils should base their internal procedure, as introduced by our Complaints Standards Authority. This says that it should cover complaints about staff attitude, and also requires councils to advise complainants about their right to come to us if they remain dissatisfied after their consideration of a complaint.

We said that the council's interpretation was incorrect. Mr C's complaints about staff attitudes should have been considered under the complaints handling procedure. If investigation of such a complaint about staff attitude indicated that disciplinary action was indicated, then any disciplinary proceedings should be considered in private rather than as part of the complaints handling procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for failing to consider Mr C's complaints under the complaints handling procedure and for failing to inform him of his right to complain to the SPSO; and
• ensure internal guidance to staff on the complaints handling procedure accurately reflects the distinction between complaints about staff attitudes and the disciplinary procedures that may flow from such complaints, and provide us with a copy of the guidance.

Summary

Ms C became concerned about her child's educational progress after the child moved schools and reported classroom disruption. She complained to the council about this, and said that the school adopted a defensive and unhelpful attitude at a meeting she attended. The council investigated, but did not uphold her complaints.

Ms C then complained to us that the council did not adequately investigate and respond to her. Our investigation found that the council's investigation had not established all the relevant facts, and we upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for not adequately investigating and responding to her complaint; and
• investigate further her concerns about her child's individual progress and the classroom environment.

Summary

Mr C had outstanding council tax to pay for 2012/13, and made two payments to cover this. However, the council's computer system can only match payments with the exact amount outstanding, and Mr C had paid by sending two sums totalling the amount owed. Where the amount paid does not match the full amount owed, the system defaults to allocate it against the current year's council tax bill. Mr C did not know this, and had correctly followed the council's instructions when making his payments. He then received a summary warrant for the outstanding 2012/13 amount. He challenged the bill, and the council then said he had council tax outstanding for 2012/13. They later found that the sums paid had been allocated to the wrong year, but told him they could have done nothing to avoid this or the problems that later occurred. Mr C was unhappy at the time they took to identify the error and cancel the summary warrant, and complained to us.

We found that Mr C could not have been expected to be aware of the problem. We noted what the council said about their computer system, and that it cannot be modified, but we took the view that they were aware of this, and that it was for them to sort out problems that might arise. There was no evidence that they had done so, and the council's file showed that no-one checked Mr C's council tax records before applying for the warrant to be served. We would also expect the council to have checked his records and identified the problem when he then got in touch about the warrant, but this did not happen until he asked for a detailed breakdown of his account. We found that the council did not take adequate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns when he raised them, and so unnecessarily pursued him for unpaid council tax.

We also found that when Mr C complained, the council did not tell him that there would be a delay in replying, and he had to chase them several times for a response. When they did respond, they did so comprehensively and provided detailed answers to his complaint. However, we found that they could have acted sooner to address his concerns when he raised them. Lack of effective investigation at the early stages meant a large exchange of emails, and ultimately led to his complaint. There were also delays in recognising the error in Mr C's bill, in communicating with the sheriff officers, and in responding to his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their processes for payment of council tax arrears, obtaining summary warrants for unpaid council tax and dealing with queries about such warrants, to ensure that any computer errors of the type noted in this complaint can be identified by council staff; and
• make a redress payment to Mr C in recognition of their failure to identify the computer error at an early stage and to communicate the cancellation of the summary warrant promptly to the sheriff officers.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had acted unreasonably when they charged her for repairs they carried out after she moved out of her property. Our investigation found that the association inspected the property after she moved out, and the report completed then showed that some repairs were needed. Although it would have been useful if photographs had been taken of the damage, we were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for them to pursue the cost of the repairs.

Miss C said that she was not given the opportunity to have the work done herself, and that other former tenants had received inspection visits before ending their tenancy. We found that the association were not obliged to do this prior to Miss C moving out, although we noted that doing so might have helped to avoid the problem. They also told us that they would have visited the property if she had contacted them about possible charges. That said, the repairs bill they sent Miss C referred to an incorrect address and did not provide her with information about the repairs she was being charged for. Miss C contacted them about this but the association then did not provide her with a written breakdown of the costs (although they did provide this during our investigation). Although this was a finely balanced decision, in view of these specific failings we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• issue a written apology to Miss C for failing to provide sufficient information and for quoting an incorrect address on the original bill;
• consider reviewing their policy for rechargeable repairs in relation to the evidence required, the information given on the bill and whether a survey should be carried out for all tenants before they move out of a property; and
• consider whether it would be appropriate to reduce Miss C's bill for rechargeable repairs further in view of the administrative failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she had been refused cosmetic surgery based on an incorrect mental health diagnosis. She also said that the investigation into her complaint was not thorough.

In our investigation, we considered the information provided by Mrs C and the board, along with her medical records, as well as obtaining independent advice from one of our medical advisers. The board said that they had not diagnosed a condition but, rather, had used a particular condition to explain Mrs C's symptoms. Our adviser recognised this but, as the symptoms were used as the reason to refuse surgery, took the view that the diagnosis was implicit. Our adviser also said that the diagnosis was clinically disputable, and so we upheld Mrs C's complaint about this.

We found that the board dealt with her complaint in line with normal procedures, but our adviser pointed out that during their investigation they had not picked up that there had been a significant misinterpretation of the government guidelines about such treatment (the adult exceptional aesthetic referral protocol). We were concerned that they did not identify this, and we also upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• make a full written apology to Mrs C for the shortcomings we found in relation to her diagnosis; and
• remind relevant staff of the importance of ensuring that reasoning and decision-making in relation to cosmetic surgery is in line with the guidance and exclusion criteria set out in the updated adult exceptional aesthetic referral protocol.

Summary

Ms C had surgery on her foot to treat bunions at Ninewells Hospital. She complained that the operation did not relieve her pain and discomfort, but made it worse, and so the operation was unsuccessful. After treatment, other possible surgical options were discussed with her, but Ms C was anxious about having further surgery without assurances that she would be properly assessed and treated in future. She was particularly concerned that no x-rays were taken before or after her operation.

During our investigation, the board were unable to explain why they took no

x-rays before surgery. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who said that although it was not mandatory, it was normal practice to take x-rays. Because they were not taken, the adviser was not able to say with certainty whether the procedure Ms C had was appropriate. We were also critical of the board for not properly recording Ms C's consent for the surgery. The procedure carried out was different from that to which she consented and we were concerned that Ms C might not have been properly advised of the procedures involved in this or the potential for failure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Ms C for the failures to x-ray her or record her consent as part of the initial assessment of her suitability for surgery; and
• consider whether there are wider implications for the failings identified in this case, and advise us of the actions taken to address this recommendation and any outcomes.

Summary

Mr C, who is a doctor, complained about the Scottish Ambulance Service's response to a call he made to them when his wife (Mrs C) awoke one night with an irregular heartbeat. Mr C reviewed her condition and was concerned that her symptoms indicated she needed immediate medical assessment and possibly treatment. He called for an ambulance, but was not happy with the response. He was taken through the standard triage procedures, despite explaining that he was a doctor and was with the patient. After a discussion with a clinical adviser, a non-emergency ambulance was sent, and Mrs C was taken to hospital.

The service said that they had a protocol for calls from doctors, but as Mr C was not practicing at the time of the call, they treated him as if he were a member of the public, and took him through the normal triage procedures. They also explained that they were in the process of redesigning their triage process for calls from health professionals, and would take this case into consideration during that process.

We obtained independent advice on the complaint from a paramedic, who said that the service should have taken greater account of Mr C's assessment of his wife's condition. This would have enabled the clinical adviser to override normal protocols, and request an emergency ambulance for Mrs C. As they did not do this, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the service:

• provide an action plan for the re-design of protocols for handling ambulance calls from health care professionals; and
• apologise to Mr C for not handling his call more appropriately, and for not sending an emergency ambulance.

Summary

Mrs C's late aunt (Miss A) had severe chronic obstructive airways disease (a disease in which airflow to the lungs is restricted). Miss A was admitted to Hairmyres Hospital as an emergency with respiratory failure. A doctor reviewed her the next day, and moved her to the medical high dependency unit (HDU). Medical staff recommended that Miss A should have a CT scan (a scan that uses a computer to produce an image of the body). However, Miss A declined this, as she was anxious about being unable to lie down due to her breathing difficulties. A doctor prescribed anti-anxiety medication, and a consultant respiratory physician discussed options with Miss A for helping her undergo the scan. During Miss A's admission, staff also noticed that she was having difficulty swallowing. Medical staff stopped her non-essential medications, and prescribed a mouth wash and thrush treatment. They were concerned about Miss A's nutrition and fluid intake, and arranged for review by a dietician, but Miss A declined nasogastric feeding (where a narrow plastic tube is placed through the nose, directly into the stomach). Two weeks after admission, Miss A was transferred to a different ward, where she died a few hours later.

Mrs C complained about Miss A's care and treatment. She was concerned that medical staff had mocked Miss A for complaining, and had not taken time to understand her anxiety about the scan. Mrs C was also unhappy with the nursing care. She said Miss A was often left in soiled clothing, was not dressed in her clothes that the family had provided, and was often left without drinking water. She also said that Miss A's cards were repeatedly taken down and returned to the locker drawer after the family had displayed them, soiled bedding was left on her bed, and on one occasion she was left without blankets. Mrs C said that communication was poor, and that nurses thought Miss A was refusing medication when actually she was unable to swallow. Mrs C was concerned that Miss A was moved to a side room on one occasion without the family being informed, and was unfit to be moved to a new ward on the day she died.

After taking independent advice on this complaint from a medical adviser and a nursing adviser, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. There was nothing in the medical records to substantiate some of Mrs C's concerns. There was evidence that Miss A's overall care was of a reasonable standard, and doctors and nurses had spent appropriate time with her, discussing her concerns and encouraging her to accept treatment. However, the advisers said that the level of communication with the family about Miss A's treatment and end of life care fell below the level of care they could reasonably expect. Although we were satisfied that most aspects of Miss A's care were reasonable, we were critical of the failure to communicate appropriately with her family and, on balance, upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board:

• apologise to Miss A's family for failing to communicate effectively with them about Miss A's health and care; and
• raise the findings in this report with the doctors concerned, for reflection.