Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained to the housing association that her neighbour had been making noise for a substantial period which was preventing her from sleeping. She also complained that her previous complaints regarding the anti-social behaviour of her neighbours had not been taken seriously. The association responded to Mrs C outlining that they were unable to take action against her neighbours on the basis of the evidence they had in relation to previous complaints. They also clarified communications with Mrs C and apologised if they had been misinterpreted. The association committed to publishing information in their newsletter regarding anti-social behaviour and how this would be managed. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and complained to us that the association's response to her complaints had been unreasonable.

The association provided us with their complaints file. It was clear that there had been many complaints with respect to anti-social behaviour and estate management issues, dating back a number of years. On reviewing the response by the association we found that they had, on the whole, properly investigated Mrs C's complaints and had communicated with her. However, with respect to the response to her recent complaint, whilst we found that the association had properly investigated matters, we found that they did not properly communicate the outcome to Mrs C. We also found that they did not properly communicate about the delay in providing their response to Mrs C. These failings were not in line with the association's complaints procedure and so we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide a written apology for the failings in the complaints response. This apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk.leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be aware of the requirements of the association's complaints procedure and should be reminded of the requirements to communicate with complainants where there is a delay in providing a 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

Miss C complained that the dental care and treatment she received at Aberdeen Dental School and Hospital was unreasonable.

Miss C was seen by the board's dentists over a period of approximately a year. She said that there was a lack of care, unacceptable waiting times, unhelpful and unsupportive staff, and poor communication. She also raised a specific concern about an appointment where a crown was fitted.

We took independent advice from a dentist. While we found that the board provided reasonable treatment in a number of areas, we found that some aspects of the care and treatment were unreasonable. We found that there was no unreasonable delay, and there was no evidence that staff were unhelpful or unsupportive or failed to communicate with Miss C. However, we had concerns that there was no evidence that Miss C was shown the crown when it was placed. We also found that Miss C's latex allergy had not been highlighted in the clinical letters, meaning a treatment area was not prepared appropriately before a procedure, although we noted that this procedure did not ultimately take place. On balance, we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for failing to check the appearance of the crown with her before she was discharged. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at: https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Before patients leave hospital, staff should check that they are satisfied with their treatment and have no concerns.

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 had a scan at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital. A mass was discovered on his lung, which could have been either a spread of his existing bowel cancer or a new lung cancer. His consultant arranged some tests to help determine which it was, but because they were busy, they asked another consultant to carry out the tests. Both consultants thought that the other would be responsible for Mr C's ongoing care, so neither of them wrote a discharge letter. While Mr C attended a follow up appointment at the second consultant's clinic, he saw another doctor who referred him back to the first consultant, instead of to the multi-disciplinary team (MDT), which is what should have happened. The first consultant did not see the referral.

Mr C and his GP both tried to contact the first consultant to find out what was happening, but it is not clear whether Mr C's phone messages were passed on and his GP's letter was not seen by the first consultant. Eventually, about six months after the scan, Mr C's GP spoke with the first consultant, who then referred Mr C to the MDT for consideration and Mr C was offered palliative radiotherapy. Mr C was told that his cancer was terminal, and he was concerned that the delay may have affected this outcome. He complained to the board about this.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the board accepted that there was an unreasonable delay and a failure to communicate with Mr C about his treatment. They apologised for this and said that they had taken action to prevent this happening again. The board had put in place a new protocol for passing care between two consultants, and a message book to ensure phone messages are recorded and signed off by consultants. The board said that the delay would not have affected the outcome in Mr C's case, although they acknowledged that palliative radiotherapy should have been offered sooner. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

We took independent advice from a thoracic surgeon (a surgeon who deals with treatment of conditions of the organs inside the chest). We found that the delay in arranging treatment for the mass on Mr C's lung was unreasonable. We upheld this complaint, however we noted that, although Mr C's cancer grew during this time, the delay would not have affected his outcome, as surgery or radical radiotherapy would not have been available even if he had been considered immediately. As the board had already put in place measures to avoid this happening again in the future, we did not make any further recommendations in this regard.

Mr C also complained that the hospital failed to communicate reasonably with him about the arrangements for his treatment. We found that there were failings in communication, including a failure by the first consultant to pick up on two important letters. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We noted that the board had already taken some steps to avoid similar failings occuring in the future, however we made a further recommendation regarding mail processes.

Recommendations

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

• Consultants should have robust mail processes in place to ensure that important letters are not missed or overlooked.

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 made a complaint to the college following her dismissal from her course. She complained that the college had failed to adhere to its procedure during the disciplinary process. She considered that she was unreasonably dealt with under the final stage of the disciplinary process and suspended from the college unreasonably. She also said that the allegations made against her were never adequately explained to her and that the disciplinary appeal hearing was not conducted fairly. The college's response set out the process it followed, that they considered the actions taken were appropriate and that the allegations made against Mrs C were disclosed in advance of the relevant disciplinary hearings. Mrs C was not happy with the response and brought her complaints about the disciplinary process to us, as well as a complaint regarding the college's handling of her complaint.

We requested the complaints file from the college. They provided minutes of relevant meetings and an investigation report of the allegations made against Mrs C. However, they were not able to provide witness statements or evidence of the investigations that had been undertaken. The college did not know if these documents had been lost or destroyed under its document retention policy. Having considered the evidence that they provided, we found that the college could not provide evidence that the allegations against Mrs C merited escalating the disciplinary process to the final stage and suspending Mrs C. The college could not evidence that Mrs C had been provided with a summary of the evidence against her, as required under their procedures. It was also clear that the disciplinary meeting notes did not record the meetings with sufficient accuracy to allow the reader a clear understanding of the content of the meetings. We found that there were failings in how the disciplinary appeal hearing was handled. In addition, the college, in response to Mrs C's complaint, did not speak with any member of staff involved in the disciplinary process, but relied on the information which was not provided to us, or which we considered was not sufficiently clear to allow a proper investigation of the complaint. For these reasons, we upheld Mrs C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failings in the disciplinary process and in the response to her complaint. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Staff should be aware of the requirements of the college's Student Disciplinary Procedure.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The college should retain all relevant information required to evidence their disciplinary process, investigations and decisions taken during the disciplinary process for a minimum of one year from the date of the final decision. Complaints files should retain this information where appropriate to the complaint. Sufficient information should be retained to allow for independent scrutiny.
• Complaints investigation staff should be made aware of the need to speak with and gather evidence from relevant parties during complaints investigations.

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 complained that the university had not responded reasonably to her complaints about the quality of teaching on her course, and that the university had not responded appropriately to allegations she had made that her tutor had bullied and harassed her.

We found that the university had not responded to all of the issues that Mrs C raised with them about the quality of the teaching on her course. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

On the topic of bullying and harassment, we found that the university had not correctly followed their Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures when they dealt with Mrs C's complaint about this. We also found that in their response to Mrs C on this issue, the apologies they included were insufficient as they were qualified apologies which said that the university was sorry if Mrs C had taken offence, rather than saying they were sorry for the failings. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C that they:
• did not respond to her allegations of harassment and bullying in line with their Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures
• did not respond reasonably to her complaints about the quality of teaching.
• The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• The elements of Mrs C's complaint about the quality of teaching which were not responded to should be properly investigated.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• When responding to complaints the university should:
• respond to all specific and relevant points raised in the complaint
• not include qualified apologies in their response
• refer to policies or procedures relevant to the subject when considering the complaint.
• Both formal and informal complaints of harassment and bullying should be responded to in line with the Harassment and Bullying Policy and Procedures.

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 way that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled a form on which he had submitted his comments on the record of discussions held during his integrated case management (ICM) case conference. He had submitted the form through his personal officer, in line with the ICM Practice Guidance Manual. According to the guidance, the form should then have been forwarded to relevant parties who had attended the case conference for their comments. Mr C did not hear anything further for several weeks and, after he followed matters up with the ICM co-ordinator, he was advised that the form had not been submitted within the required timescales and so there would be no action from the prison based social worker.

Mr C submitted a complaint to the SPS, and after escalation the complaint was heard by an ICC (Internal Complaints Committee). The ICC found that the form had been submitted within the timescale and as such it should be considered. They did not set a timescale within which this should happen, and when nothing further appeared to happen Mr C brought his complaint to us.

We found that there were several stages at which the process had broken down. First, there was a delay in the receipt of the form being acknowledged, then there was a failure of the ICM co-ordinator to oversee the process by which the form was sent out to relevant parties for comment. Despite Mr C having raised concerns with the SPS, and failings being identified by the ICC, the SPS missed the opportunity to resolve matters at an early stage.

As well as not having imposed a timescale for action to be taken, the ICC failed to confirm what they would recommend as a result of the failings identified in Mr C's case to ensure that the matter was resolved appropriately. We upheld the complaint. An apology had already been made to Mr C, but we made a number of other recommendations.

Recommendations

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

• The ICM co-ordinator should ensure that comments from relevant parties are sought within a reasonable timeframe, following up where necessary, with a view to ensuring that an accurate record of the ICM case conference discussions is entered onto the relevant computer system as soon as reasonably practicable after the ICM case conference has taken place.
• Consideration should be given to imposing a set timeframe within which to acknowledge forms of the type that Mr C had submitted, and to obtain comments from relevant parties.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• If the ICC are recommending actions, where possible they should specify the timescale within which action is to be taken.
• Where failings are identified, the ICC should confirm in their response the steps to be taken to resolve the failings.

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 had a decree granted against him at court for a debt. The court sent a notification of this to the organisation that maintains the register of decrees. Mr C paid the debt, and was told that his name was taken off the register. However, some time later, it became apparent to Mr C that his name had not been taken off the register. Mr C complained to the registry organisation, who explained that his name had been entered on the register twice, as the court had sent them a duplicate record of the decree. Mr C complained that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) unreasonably sent a duplicate record to the registry organisation. He also complained about SCTS' handling of his complaint.

We looked at a copy of the information that the court sent to the registry organisation, which showed that SCTS had sent a duplicate record. We found that there was a responsibility on SCTS not to send a duplicate record, and so we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Regarding complaints handling, we found that SCTS had mistakenly treated Mr C's complaint as if he were making a claim for financial compensation, rather than as a complaint about an administrative matter. SCTS acknowledged that they did not keep Mr C updated with the progress of his complaint, and that there had been a breakdown in communication between the court and SCTS headquarters. SCTS said that they would address this problem, and we asked them for evidence that they have done this. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Mr C with a written apology for sending a duplicate record to the registry organisation. The apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Provide Mr C with a written apology for failing to handle his complaint reasonably. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

Miss C complained about delays in the council's response to her request for them to fix a leak. She complained that the work was not completed until seven months after her request. Miss C was also unhappy as she felt the level of communication from the council during this time was poor.

The council told us that the delay in repairing the leak was caused by difficulties in accessing the property above Miss C's, as this was the source of the leak. However, they acknowledged that the delays in completing the repair were unacceptable. They also recognised that it took a significant amount of time to complete decoration and plastering work after the leak was fixed, although they believed this was down to Miss C not being readily available. The council acknowledged that they did not make attempts to explore alternative arrangements to access the property in Miss C's absence. The council also accepted that Miss C had not received appropriate communications throughout her experience, and they advised that staff training had been planned to address failings in this area.

We upheld both of Miss C's complaints. We found that the delays in carrying out the work were unreasonable, and we noted insufficiencies in the council's process. We found that Miss C was given conflicting information from different members of staff, and that she was not regularly updated on what was happening with her repair. As the work had been completed by the time Miss C brought her complaint to us, we did not make further recommendations on this aspect of the complaint. As the council had committed to undertake training to address failings in communication, we did not make further recommendations in this regard, though we did ask the council for evidence that this training had been carried out.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Miss C for the delay in dealing with the repair and for the poor level of communication throughout the process. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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 council's handling of a planning application to extend a restaurant near his home. Mr C was concerned that a parking policy had not been taken into account when determining the application and that the planning service had not waited on a consultation response from the roads service at the council before approving the application. During their own consideration of the case, the council accepted that parking had not been covered in the planning officer's report for the application and they apologised for this failing.

We took independent advice from a planning adviser. We found that there was no evidence that the relevant policy for parking had been considered when determining the planning application. While there was no statutory requirement to await a roads service consultation response before determining the application, the advice we received highlighted that proceeding without all the relevant information was a key shortcoming. However, there was no evidence that proceeding without the consultation response made any difference to the council's decision to approve the application. On balance, we upheld the complaint. However, based on the advice we received, we did not consider that there was any further action that the council were required to take in respect of the application. We did make a recommendation to ensure that material considerations and relevant policies are taken into account when determining a planning application in the future.

Recommendations

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

• All material considerations should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The correct policies should be identified and referenced in the report of handling.

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, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of Mr A who is a kinship carer for his nephew (child B). Following the death of child B's mother, Mr A stepped forward and agreed to became his nephew's carer when no other family members were available. Mr A applied to the council for kinship care allowance (financial support which is available for those who are caring for a child who has a looked after status, who has previously had looked after status, who has been placed with involvement from the local authority or who is at risk of becoming looked after). The council did not award the allowance on the basis that child B had not been previously looked after and was not at risk of being looked after. Mrs C complained that this decision was unreasonable.

We took independent advice from a social worker. The adviser noted that the council did not carry out any assessment of Mr A or child B's needs. It was the adviser's view, which we accepted, that had Mr A not come forwards, child B would have undoubtedly have been received into care. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint and made a recommendation to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Carry out an assessment of child B and Mr A's needs in order to determine whether the family are eligible for, or require, kinship care assistance.

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.