Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant (Mr D) raised concerns about the handling by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for a site adjacent to this home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a)        have proper regard to site levels in the development (not upheld);
• (b)        ensure that appropriate plans were made available to enable neighbours properly to gauge the effect of the proposed development on their privacy (not upheld); and
• (c)        insist that the play area for the development was incorporated within the development rather than adjacent to existing housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained that information on a sign at the gates of a cemetery was inaccurate.  They had based their decision to have their child interred in the cemetery on the information on this sign and other information supplied to them by North Lanarkshire Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the information on the sign at the gates of the cemetery, which played a large part in Mr and Mrs C's decision to have their child interred there, was inaccurate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         reconsider their decision not to close the cemetery gates in light of the discrepancy between the decision and the Rules, and thereafter install signage that accurately reflects the security of the cemeteries and ensure that the Rules are compatible with the outcome of the decision; and
• (ii)        addresses the specific injustice caused to Mr and Mrs C by apologising to them for the distress caused by the misleading signage and, whilst reconsidering their decision as noted in (i) above, the Council take action to ensure that paragraph 36 of the Rules is properly enforced.  This could take the form of regular security checks being made in cemeteries outside manned hours or further liaison with the Police to ensure adequate patrols are made of cemeteries.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a delay by doctors at Monklands Hospital (the Hospital) in diagnosing that she had cancer of the cervix and that she should have been referred to the Colposcopy Clinic sooner.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was a delay by doctors at the Hospital in diagnosing that Mrs C was suffering from cancer of the cervix (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)        provide Mrs C with an apology for the failings which have been identified in this report; and
• (ii)       share this report with Gynaecologist 1 and his staff and encourage them to reflect on its findings.

The Board 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 by two General Practitioners (GP 1 and GP 2) to his mother (Mrs A) prior to her death.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       GP 1 and GP 2 failed to respond appropriately to Mrs A's symptoms (upheld);
• (b)       GP 1 failed to refer Mrs A to the pain clinic quickly enough (not upheld); and
• (c)       GP 1's letter referring Mrs A to the pain clinic was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)        both GP 1 and GP 2 raise this case at their annual appraisal with a view to incorporating further training on recognising the progress of cancer into their continuing professional development;
• (ii)       GP 1 raises this case at her annual appraisal to ensure that she fully understands which information should appropriately be included in referral letters.; and
• (iii)      the Practice apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings identified in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, alleged that there were a number of improper processes involved in the Council's decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the way Council officers handled a Planning Committee hearing and about the response of South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to his complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the Council unfairly denied Mr C, on behalf of the objectors whom he was representing, the opportunity to put points to the Council's Planning Committee on 30 August 2005 (not upheld); and
• (b)        the Council failed to properly deal with Mr C's complaints (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained on behalf of Mrs A, that there were a number of improper processes involved in Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Ms B, alleged that there were a number of improper processes involved in Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to move the village of Freuchie into the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area for strategic planning purposes.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)        failed to carry out local consultation before changing the local plan boundaries (not upheld);
• (b)        failed to take account of the complainant's views despite confirmation that they would do so (not upheld);
• (c)        misrepresented the situation (not upheld); and
• (d)        encouraged staff not to disclose information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of complaints that were in connection with unanswered questions he put to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) about private discharge proposals in or near sewered areas.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that SEPA:

• (a)        failed to answer five questions outlined in Mr C's letter of 25 April 2005 and all subsequent questions he raised thereafter (upheld);
• (b)        failed to adequately answer the related queries from Mr C's lawyer (not upheld);
• (c)        failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Service Charter that was in operation at the time Mr C made his complaint (upheld);
• (d)        failed to ensure that their staff should not use draft policies that have not been signed off by the Board (not upheld); and
• (e)        as an organisation fails to be consistent and fair (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SEPA:

• (i)         apologise to Mr C for failing to answer his five questions and respond directly to him answering the questions in the same way that SEPA replied to me;
• (ii)        apologise to Mr C for their failure to meet the terms and conditions of their Service Charter;
• (iii)       review how they identify and address formal complaints that arise from ongoing correspondence.

SEPA have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about an incident involving her son while he was at school.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was not advised properly of the circumstances involved (not upheld);
• (b)  insufficient information was obtained and the school failed to seek medical help (not upheld);
• (c)  on his return to school, Ms C's son was unreasonably required to participate in PE (not upheld); and
• (d)  although Ms C's son identified those involved, the school failed to report this to the police (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.