Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the way Stirling Council (the Council) had addressed her complaints relating to an email (the Email) and note of a telephone conversation she received as part of an information request.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to adequately investigate and take action regarding Mrs C's complaint about the Email (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that his daughter (Ms A)'s GP Practice (the Practice), the Out of Hours Service and Accident & Emergency (A&E) at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, did not properly diagnose and treat her illness.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Practice did not properly diagnose and care for Ms A's illness (not upheld); and
• (b) the Out of Hours Service and A&E at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, did not properly diagnose and care for Ms A's illness (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) review its threshold for considering whether or not a patient might have a subarachnoid haemorrhage, and whether or not early/urgent imaging would be beneficial; and
• (ii) consider recording patients' actual blood pressure when a check is made.

The Ombudsman recommends that (Fife NHS Board) the Board:

• (iii) apologise to Mr C for the failure of medical staff to reach a differential diagnosis of subarachnoid haemorrhage on 22and 23 July 2005;
• (iv) review its locally agreed indications and process for admission, observation and investigation of patients presenting with acute headache in A&E, including ensuring that the teaching and guidance given to A&E junior doctors is based on current research; and
• (v) ensure that Out of Hours records are in line with relevant record-keeping standards, for example as laid down by the General Medical Council.

The Practice have accepted the recommendations.  The Board have also accepted the recommendations, and in some respects have already taken action and made procedural changes to address them.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C), an owner-occupier, raised a number of concerns regarding the way her requests to Fife Council (the Council) for repair and improvements to the development where she resides were handled.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate and timely action in respect of Ms C's requests for repairs and improvements outlined in her letter of 6 November 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a complaint against Angus Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of his complaint about the anti-social behaviour of his neighbours and his housing transfer request.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) inadequately handled Mr C's complaint about his neighbour's anti-social behaviour (not upheld); and
• (b) inadequately handled Mr C's housing transfer application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns regarding Falkirk Council (the Council)'s consideration of her objections to a planning application in respect of an extension to a neighbouring property.  Mrs C believes that the Council failed to provide accurate information when considering the application and also provided inaccurate information to her concerning the details of her local Councillor.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to properly consider the potential issues of overshadowing and loss of amenity caused by the extension (not upheld);
• (b) planning officers failed to consider the impact of the development on the surrounding conservation area (not upheld);
• (c) the planning report on which the decision to grant consent was based was inaccurate as it was considered that a neighbouring area of ground contained trees protected under a Tree Preservation Order when they did not (not upheld);
• (d) the development would establish an unacceptable precedent (not upheld);
• (e) the Council held inaccurate records on Councillors details (not upheld);
• (f) planning officers failed to refer the application to committee (not upheld); and
• (g) the extension was contrary to the Local Plan (not upheld);

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council)'s decision to relocate temporary accommodation for young homeless people to Main Street, High Blantyre was taken without adequate consultation with local residents.  Mr C said that the decision to create similar accommodation for young homeless people at Blairtum Park, Rutherglen had been preceded by extensive consultation with the local community.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to engage in proper community consultation regarding the relocation of young homeless persons' accommodation to Main Street, High Blantyre, despite having done so for a similar project at Blairtum Park, Rutherglen (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about how Stirling Council (the Council) had handled complaints she submitted to them following incidents involving her younger son (Child C) and the owner/driver (Mr D) of a coach contracted to take Child C and other pupils on the return trip from a secondary school in Stirling (the School) to their local community (the Village).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) following the first incident involving Child C, the Council did not take the action they previously stated they would take against Mr D (upheld);
• (b) the Council failed properly to investigate the incidents involving Mr D and Child C (partially upheld); and
• (c) an internal suggestion that Mr D be suspended and another driver be used for the run was not followed up (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Council apologise to Mrs C for not following up on their officer's statement that a reprimand would be issued to Mr D;
• (ii) the Council apologise to Mrs C for the way her initial complaints were handled; and
• (iii) should in the future the situation arise that only Mr D's coach is used for conveying pupils home from the School to the Village, the Council offer mediation to explore the basis on which Child C could return to using the service.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that his late mother (Mrs A)'s fluid retention had not been treated correctly while she was in Wishaw General Hospital.  He was concerned, in particular, about a failure to recommence diurectic medication.  He believed that this led to congestion on Mrs A's lungs which he felt was the cause of her death.  Mr C was unhappy that the death certificate said the cause of Mrs A's death was Alzheimer's disease.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs A's fluid retention was not treated correctly (upheld); and
• (b) Mrs A's death certificate was completed incorrectly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) pass a copy of this report to the Clinical Nurse Specialist who audited the ward in 2007 to decide whether it should be reflected in the action plan;
• (ii) create a structured programme of review of medical records;
• (iii) share this report with all clinical staff involved in Mrs A's care;
• (iv) ensure that, when clinical staff are asked to review meetings notes they are, where appropriate, reminded of the importance of checking the accuracy of clinical information provided;
• (v) apologise to Mrs A's family for the failures in her care;
• (vi) take steps to correct the error in Mrs A's death certificate or provide acceptable reasons why this cannot be done;
• (vii) consider whether death certification should be included in the continuing education of medical staff; and
• (viii) apologise to Mr C for the failure to respond appropriately to his concerns about the error in the death certificate.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that Fife Council (the Council) granted planning consent for the construction of a mobile telephone mast in a residential area.  The mobile telephone company erected the mast in the incorrect place, and then applied retrospectively for planning consent, this was refused on the grounds of visual intrusion.  Mrs C believes that the original application should also have been refused on these grounds.  She has also complained that the Council claimed to have had a moratorium on the construction of mobile telephone masts on Council property at the time preventing them from offering an alternative site to the mobile telephone company.  This she believes, was not true.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to give appropriate consideration to the terms of the local and structure plans with regard to scale and character when considering the original application (not upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure proper neighbour notification (not upheld); and
• (c) gave misleading advice on a Council moratorium on the erection of mobile telephone masts (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the response of Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) to his reports of dog fouling in a public area immediately adjoining his property and at the way the Council responded to his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not take effective action to prevent dog fouling on an area adjoining Mr C's home (not upheld); and
• (b) mishandled Mr C's formal complaint (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) continue to carry out appropriate surveillance of the area in question; and
• (ii) review their complaint handling in this instance with a view to clarifying to complainants at the outset the distinction between a request for a service and a complaint of dissatisfaction about delivery of a service.

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