Upheld, recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained about a neighbouring dog owner who persistently allowed his dog to foul in the street. Mr C repeatedly contacted the council about this problem and made a formal complaint when this issue continued to occur. He was unhappy with the perceived lack of action from the council with no staff visiting his property to discuss this issue. He received a verbal response to his complaint over the phone and noted no improvement following this, so escalated his complaint. The council investigated the matter and partially upheld the part of Mr C's complaint which related to poor communication and the length of time to respond to his complaint. However, they did not agree that staff had misinformed him about the actions they could take.

During our investigation we gathered information from the council, including their policies and procedures on dog fouling. We found that Mr C had made numerous reports of fouling to the council but they had not met with him or contacted him to discuss the situation. It was only once he made a formal complaint that he received a response and this was a delayed response to his complaint which was completed over the phone. The accompanying case note did not sufficiently outline what was discussed and this formed part of Mr C's escalated complaint. The council highlighted that their policy was not to issue a fixed penalty notice unless council officers had witnessed an offence, but the legislation does allow for exceptions to be made where strong, objective evidence is provided. However, this does not appear to have been explained to Mr C until almost four months after his initial report of an issue, and only then as part of the council's final response to his complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaints as there was a lack of contact and communication from council staff during the initial months when Mr C reported numerous incidents. There was also a delayed response to his complaint and the evidence to summarise the council's response was lacking in detail.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to take reasonable action to stop dog fouling in his street. Apologise further for failing to respond to appropriately to him. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• In cases where they make a decision to respond verbally to a complaint at stage one, instead of in writing, the case note to accompany the phone call should include an appropriate level of detail to reflect what was discussed.

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, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Ms C complained that the council unreasonably failed to respond to Mr A's complaints of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. Ms C also complained about the council's complaints handling.

Our investigation found that the council did not respond to Mr A's concerns in line with the requirements of their anti-social behaviour procedure. The council told us that they had addressed issues appropriately where they had corroboration, while other issues were more appropriately addressed by the police. Our investigation found that the council had not kept Mr A sufficiently updated regarding the progress or outcome of his complaint, and that their records of Mr A's reports of anti-social behaviour concerns were not sufficiently detailed. In terms of the council's own complaints handling, we found that Mr A had complained three separate times before he received an appropriate response. As such, the council had failed to respond to Mr A reasonably and in line with their timescales. We upheld both of Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr A for failing to meet their timescales for responding to complaints. This apology 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:

• Staff responding to anti-social behaviour concerns and complaints should be aware of the requirements and relevant procedures.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff responding to complaints should be aware of their responsibilities concerning timescales.

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 complained that the council wrongly advised her about the financial contribution they would make towards her mother (Mrs A)’s care home fees. This money represented Mrs A's entitlement to free personal and nursing care. Free personal care is available for everyone aged 65 and over in Scotland who have been assessed by the local authority as needing it. Free nursing care is available for people of any age who have been assessed as requiring nursing care services. The council over-calculated her entitlement but, while council staff realised this within a few months, they did not notify Ms C or the care home of the reduced payment level for more than two years after Mrs A was first entitled to the payments. Ms C was unhappy that she was only then made aware that a large debt had accumulated and had not had the ability to budget or plan for this. The council accepted their initial miscalculation and offered to cover the additional costs until the point they had picked up the error. Ms C didn't consider this was fair or reasonable as the debt had continued to increase for a further 18 months before the council made anyone aware of the error.

The council told us that they were putting new processes in place to ensure that changes to the contribution amount would be notified to relevant parties, and that the error in this case was a result of a manual input error which could no longer occur as the process had been automated. Our investigation found that the council's initial calculation was incorrect and that Mrs A was only ever entitled to the lower contribution amount. However, we considered that it was poor customer service and unacceptable not to advise Ms C of the correction as soon as reasonably possible. We, therefore, upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Make an additional contribution payment for Mrs A to the care home. The payment should represent the difference between the incorrect and the correct contribution figure for the period from the date they identified the error to the date Miss C was notified. The payment should be made by the date indicated by us. If payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from that date to the date of payment.

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

• Relevant parties should be given prompt notification of unscheduled changes.

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 raised concerns about the care and treatment the board provided to his late sister (Mrs A) at Wishaw General Hospital. These concerns extended to medical care, nursing care, and communication with Mrs A's family.

Mrs A had previously been involved in a road traffic accident, but had been discharged and was recovering. She attended Wishaw General Hospital after feeling unwell, and was admitted. She deteriorated the next day, but recovered. She experienced a further deterioration approximately ten days later. Her condition did not improve over the following days, and Mrs A died approximately four weeks later.

Mr C raised a number of specific concerns regarding the board's identification of sepsis (a blood infection), their actions regarding providing Mrs A with a cannula (a thin tube inserted into a vein or body cavity to administer medication or drain off fluid), and staff not transferring her to the intensive care unit when her condition deteriorated. He also raised concerns about nursing care, including management of Mrs A's wounds by nursing staff.

We took independent advice from a consultant in acute medicine and from a nursing adviser. Regarding medical care, we found that Mrs A should have been treated more aggressively for sepsis, and that there was some delay in relation to a cannula. We also found that Mrs A had been given a penicillin based antibiotic, though she was recorded as having an allergy. However, there was no evidence in the record that this impacted on her outcome. Regarding nursing care, we had concerns about wound care, and the general condition of the nursing records. Regarding communication with Mrs A's family, we found there was insufficient evidence of this in the records, given the seriousness of Mrs A's condition.

We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in medical and nursing care provided to Mrs A, and for the poor level of communication with her family. This apology 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:

• Staff should be aware of the recognition and management of sepsis.
• Staff should be confident in managing situations where vascular access becomes difficult.
• The microbiology or infection team could be involved in the management of complex cases.
• Staff should communicate adequately with a patient's family and should make sure that communication with the family is appropriately documented.

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 a delay in receiving a respiratory out-patient appointment. He waited 33 weeks in total for an appointment, when the board are targeted to provide first out-patient appointments for the majority of patients within 12 weeks of referral. The board confirmed that they were presently unable to see all patients in a timely manner, but said they were taking steps to try to reduce waiting times. They noted that the appointment Mr C eventually received was for an additional Sunday clinic that was set up to deal with long waits. We considered that Mr C's wait was excessive so we upheld his complaint. We noted that the board had apologised to him for his wait but that he subsequently waited a further two months for an appointment. We also considered that a further apology reflecting the full extent of his wait was appropriate. We also asked the board to provide us with further details of the steps they were taking to reduce waiting times and try to meet the 12-week target.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the length of time he had to wait. This apology 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:

• Take steps to reduce waiting times and work towards meeting the 12-week target for respiratory out-patient appointments.

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 complained to us that the university had not followed their harassment and bullying policy and procedures for students after she made a complaint that she had been harassed and bullied by her PhD supervisor. Ms C sent the university a recording of a meeting with her supervisor with her complaint. She said that the supervisor had made her feel threatened at the meeting. The university decided that they could investigate Ms C's complaint without listening to the recording and destroyed it before they met the supervisor to discuss the matter.

We found that the university had not carried out an adequate investigation into the matter. The allegations Ms C made were serious and we considered that the university should have recorded more clearly the reasons why they felt they could investigate the complaint without listening to the recording before they destroyed it. We also found that the university had not issued an adequate response to the issues Ms C had raised. The response said that they would implement the three requests she had made but did not advise her of the outcome of their investigation into her allegations. In addition, the response did not advise her of how to escalate the matter if she considered that the outcome was not satisfactory. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C also complained that the university had not followed their complaints policy. The university's complaints policy states that it is important to be clear from the start of the investigation exactly what is being investigated and to ensure that both the person making the complaint and the complaints officer understand the scope of the investigation. However, there was no evidence that the university had contacted Ms C to discuss the scope of the investigation before issuing their response to her. We did not consider that the university's email to her was an adequate response to the issues she had raised. In addition, the university did not advise her in the initial response that she could contact our office. In view of these failings, we also upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to follow their harassment and bullying policy and procedures for students. Further apologise for failing to follow their complaints policy. 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:

• Supervisors should be competent, and adequately trained, to conduct difficult conversations. In particular, it should be ensured that Ms C's previous supervisor has the required competence and skill.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints handling staff should be made aware of the findings of our investigation with regards to their failure to follow the harassment and bullying policy and procedure for students, and failure to follow the university's complaints policy.

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 considered that his water bills were excessive and he contacted Business Stream to raise his concerns. Business Stream confirmed that Mr C's water meter was also supplying the premises next door. Mr C complained that Business Stream had been aware of the meter set-up for some time. Business Stream confirmed that Scottish Water had carried out a site visit some years previously and had established that Mr C was on a shared supply with his neighbours.

Both Scottish Water and Business Stream said that this was a private matter between Mr C and his neighbours. They explained that at the time of the meter installation the two properties were in one building, and that Scottish Water were under no obligation to split the supply. Business Stream told Mr C that water resale rules applied. They continued to bill Mr C, saying that he could recover charges from his neighbours. However the neighbours refused to pay Mr C any money, as they said they were also being billed by Business Stream.

Scottish Water advised Mr C that he could have a new meter installed, but that he would have to bear the cost of this.

Mr C complained to us that Business Stream unreasonably failed to notify him that his water meter was supplying a neighbouring property, unreasonably charged him while also charging his neighbours for the same supply and unreasonably delayed in responding to his complaint. We upheld each of these complaints.

We found that Business Stream ought to have notified Mr C as soon as they became aware from Scottish Water that the water supply was shared. We found that Business Stream had been misapplying water resale rules and were unreasonably charging two parties for the same supply. We found that the delay in responding to Mr C's complaint had been unreasonable.

When we told Business Stream what we intended to recommend, they agreed to arrange instalment of a new meter serving only Mr C's property, at no cost to Mr C.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this investigation.
• Credit Mr C's account with an ex-gratia payment of £200.
• Assess Mr C's average usage once a new meter has been installed, serving only his property, and amend the previously issued usage to ensure that he is only billed for his own usage since October 2014.

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

• A policy should be put in place which would appropriately address situations similar to this, in such a way that they cannot double-charge for the same supply. Any such policy should include guidance on assisting the customer in resolving the matter, without inappropriate reference to the Water Resale Rules. They should also conduct an audit, identifying other customers they are aware of who are also supplying a neighbouring property. Any such customers should be notified and advised of the steps they can take, with Business Stream working with them to find an acceptable way forward. They should ensure that where they become aware of any customers in the future who are also supplying a neighbouring property, notification is made and advice is given, as above.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be confident in identifying and escalating complaints, and in ensuring that complaint progression is monitored closely.

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 council failed to appropriately explain the charges relating to two statutory notices served in respect of a property of which he was one of the owners.

A tender process occurred and the contract administrator advised the owners of the property of the estimated costs. Subsequently, an update from the contract administrator advised owners of increased costs to the project. Owners of the property, including Mr C, raised concerns about this. Following the completion of the works the project was subject to a review by an independent external consultant. This review resulted in a number of reductions to the costs of the work.

Mr C complained to the council about the explanations they provided regarding the works. He requested further explanatory material from the council about reconciling costs through the course of the project. The council provided additional information on the expenses for the project, but they also relied on the professional judgement of the independent external consultant who said that the remaining costs were recoverable.

Having reviewed the relevant guidance, and the correspondence between Mr C and the council, we noted that there had been some shortcomings in the explanation given during the course of the works. We did acknowledge, however, that the council had subsequently sought a review of the project, applied a reduction to the costs and provided additional explanations. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide Mr C with a copy of the relevant documents detailing changes in the costs to the project.
• Apologise to Mr C for the failures in communication highlighted in this investigation.

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 complained about the standard of street cleaning in her area, particularly in the autumn when leaves are blocking drains and causing flooding. She said that despite her reporting problems with blocked drains and leaf litter many times via the council's online reporting system, and despite the council's agreement that they would carry out a deep clean of the street and add the street to their list for priority leaf removal in the autumn, the council failed to take reasonable steps to effectively clear the street.

The council acknowledged to us their failures to effectively clear Ms C's street when requested to do so and the evidence we considered supported this. As a result, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C, if they have not already done so, for failing to clean her street in line with their responsibilities.
• Arrange for a full street clean to be carried out in Ms C's street, if they have not already done so.
• Add Ms C to their list as a priority for leaf removal during the autumn due to the risk of flooding.

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

• Staff should be aware of their duty to record and action requests for street cleaning, in line with their responsibilities.

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 there was an unreasonable delay in the board providing him with treatment on his right eye. Mr C is diabetic and was referred to Gartnavel General Eye Hospital when he began having problems with the vision in his right eye. Mr C was seen by the vitreo-retinal (relating to the back of the eye) unit at the hospital eight weeks after the initial referral was made, and it was determined that he needed surgery on the eye. Surgery was carried out around three weeks later, and afterwards Mr C was told that he would not regain sight in the eye. Mr C complained that in the time he had to wait for an appointment at the hospital he went from being able to see to losing sight in his right eye.

In response to our enquiries, the board explained that when Mr C's referral to the hospital was made, it was not logged in the normal way on the electronic system and therefore was not given a clinical priority. The board apologised for this and said that they had taken measures to prevent the likelihood of this reccurring in the future.

During our investigation, we took independent advice from a medical professional who is an ophthalmologist. We found that, given the symptoms that were recorded in the referral, Mr C should have been given clinical priority and an urgent appointment. We found that the delay between Mr C being referred to the vitreo-retinal unit and being seen by them was unreasonable. We also found that had surgery been carried out at an earlier point, Mr C would have had more of a chance of maintaining a better level of vision. Therefore, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the delay in providing treatment for his right eye.

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

• Consultants should be aware that one of the biggest determinants of visual outcome following retinal surgery is the visual acuity when surgery is carried out.
• Referrals to the vitreo-retinal service should be appropriately logged.

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.