Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that his granddaughter (Ms A) had been disadvantaged in applying for a Council property because of errors made in the application process.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) wrongly suspended Ms A's application for housing, thereby jeopardising her chance of being allocated a house (not upheld); and
• (b) incorrectly awarded too many overcrowding points to Ms A (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) confirm to this office the steps taken to prevent repetition of the incorrect suspension of Ms A's housing application;
• (ii) confirm that work to correct the computer system error has been completed satisfactorily; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms A for the distress caused by the incorrect award of overcrowding points.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment provided to his late mother (Mrs A) at the Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline (the Hospital) between 26 March 2006 and her death there on 21 May 2006.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Fife NHS Board:

• (a) failed to provide appropriate care and treatment to Mrs A (not upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure adequate communication with Mrs A and her family about Mrs A's condition and treatment (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to adequately respond to Mr C's complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Fife NHS Board use the events of this case, in particular the differing perceptions of staff and family about these events, in staff training to consider how communication in these circumstances might be improved for the future.

The Board have accepted the Recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained when Stirling Council (the Council) changed the method and frequency of his refuse collection service.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) acted inappropriately by changing the waste collection service (not upheld); and
• (b) used an arbitrary figure for the number of people required before a household could apply for a larger bin (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, as part of their review of the service, the Council should consider how five person households are coping with the arrangements.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) were using incorrect school boundaries when deciding which children qualified for free school transport.  The result of this was that the children concerned had to apply every term for 'privileged places' rather than being granted free places automatically.  These privileged places are awarded at the discretion of the Council and are dependent on places being available on the existing transport.  Mrs C is concerned that the Council have altered the school boundaries without the required statutory public consultation being carried out.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council are not using the correct school boundaries when establishing school placements and free school transport (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council carries out the actions that they have suggested to address the issues raised in this complaint, these are:

• (i) notify all effected parents of their intentions to guarantee school transport for their children until the end of their schooling; and
• (ii) ensure that the Catchment Area Review Group consider the issues raised in this report to ensure that a long term solution to the school boundary problems is achieved.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

Ms C complained about Falkirk Council (the Council)'s handling of her application for housing benefit.  She applied in March 2006 and said she did not receive a determination until October 2006.  She felt there was excessive delay and was also concerned about an internal email which she said contained inappropriate comments.  In addition, she complained that she had received an eviction notice on the grounds of outstanding rent arrears, when the Council were still processing her housing benefit application.  Ms C was in Council rented accommodation at the time.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) mishandled Ms C's application for housing benefit (upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure she was not sent a notice concerning eviction proceedings[1] (upheld); and
• (c) had allowed inappropriate email correspondence referring to Ms C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review their Rents System to consider whether they could introduce a process of monitoring manual holds on accounts.

The Council has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

 [1] This was not an eviction notice but a notice for recovery and possession which is an essential preliminary to eviction proceedings.

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Ms C) raised a number of concerns that Forth Valley NHS Board (the Board) did not properly diagnose potential complications with the twin babies Ms C was carrying, did not provide proper treatment to Ms C and the twin babies when those complications became critical and did not properly handle Mr C and Ms C's subsequent complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Board did not:

• (a) provide adequate clinical care to Ms C (not upheld); and
• (b) properly handle Mr C and Ms C's complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) consider including the recording of the depth of the deepest pool of fluid in each amniotic sac as part of their routine record of ultrasound scans; and
• (ii) provide an apology to Mr C and Ms C for the comments during the meeting of 24 February 2006 which were insensitive in the circumstances.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Fife Council (the Council) inappropriately pursued him for a support charge in connection with his sheltered housing.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council inappropriately pursued Mr C for a support charge in connection with his sheltered housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about how Stirling Council (the Council) had handled his reports about the condition of windows in his council flat.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that Mr C's windows are in a good state of repair (not upheld);
• (b) failed to check on the adequacy of repairs carried out in February 2006 (upheld); and
• (c) failed to accept the advice of a window contractor that the windows in Mr C's flat should be replaced and upgraded (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for their failing with regard to inspection.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of issues with Fife Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of a planning application submitted for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling-house adjoining the complainants' property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council in their handling of the planning application failed to consider the effects of the proposed development on Mr and Mrs C's home in relation to privacy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of her client (Mr A) in relation to Mr A's expulsion from Coatbridge College (the College).  Ms C raised a variety of complaints, however, through the course of my investigation a number of points were discontinued following agreement with the complainant.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the College failed to apply their Disciplinary Procedure properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.