Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved that the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission (SPCC) failed to properly investigate his complaint that he was being kept unnecessarily in segregation by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He complained that, having decided to re-investigate his complaint, the SPCC later dropped it because he had been moved to another prison.

Specific complaint and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the decision by the SPCC to suspend Mr C's complaint when a new Interim Commissioner was appointed in July 2008 was unreasonable and caused him injustice (upheld);
• (b) the decision by the SPCC to re-investigate Mr C's complaint was flawed and caused him hardship and injustice given that the previous Commissioner had already made recommendations to the Executive Committee for the Management of Difficult Prisoners (ECMDP) (upheld);
• (c) the SPCC misinterpreted Mr C's complaint concerning a specific prison, and as a result dropped it (upheld);
• (d) the decision by the SPCC to drop Mr C's complaint entirely was flawed and based on insufficient, or untested, evidence that the SPS were managing his case (upheld);
• (e) there were unreasonable delays by the SPCC in dealing with Mr C's complaint (upheld); and (f) the administrative handling and service quality of Mr C's complaint was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the SPCC:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings and failings identified in this report;
• (ii) go back to the SPS and urgently establish if there is a long-term management plan and/or reintegration plan in place for Mr C and provide evidence of the plan to this office;
• (iii) give proper consideration to the need for impact assessments when introducing service changes;
• (iv) in future, carefully consider a complainant's original complaint, and all the circumstances surrounding it, as well as consulting fully with the complainant to ensure that they understand the complaint and his/her point of view before deciding to drop any of the heads of complaint;
• (v) take steps to introduce their internal timescale targets as quickly as possible and include them in their complaints leaflet so that complainants are aware of what they can expect from the SPCC; and
• (vi) review their complaints handling processes and systems with a view to improving their communication with complainants. In addition, they should consider putting in place better information gathering techniques and improve their file management procedures.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) complained that her son (Mr A)'s General Practitioner (GP 1) failed in his duty of care by not referring Mr A for an immediate ultrasound scan when he presented with severe pain and swelling in his left testicle. She also complained that a medical practice (the Practice) failed to meet the requirements of their Practice Complaints Procedure in the way they dealt with her complaint.

Specific complains and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) GP 1 failed in his duty of care by not referring Mr A for an immediate ultrasound scan (not upheld); and
• (b) the Practice failed to meet the requirements of their Practice Complaints Procedure in the way they handled Mrs C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) formally apologise to Mrs C for the failure to follow the Practice Complaints Procedure, and
• (ii) take steps to ensure that Practice staff who deal with complaints are fully conversant with the time standards within the Practice Complaints Procedure and respond in accordance with these time standards.

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

Please note that this Report contained typographical errors in Annex 1. It should read:

The General Practitioner who examined Mr A and recorded 'lump is Right epididymis'.

The SPSO has apologised to the complainant for this error.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the accessibility of further education for her son (Mr A), who is blind and has learning difficulties. She complained that South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) failed to take into account Mr A's specific needs when deciding on the educational package that they would fund. Mrs C considered that the Council unreasonably dismissed funding a residential placement at Henshaws College, a specialist college in England for blind students, in favour of a less suitable local option.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council acted unreasonably in their decision not to fund a place for Mr A at Henshaws College (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr A for the delay to the introduction of his personal care package and the subsequent gap in his personal development;
• (ii) review their procedures to ensure that service users are provided with details of proposed care packages prior to being asked for their acceptance; and
• (iii) pay Mr A an appropriate sum that adequately reflects the hardship and injustice experienced by the family as a consequence of the considerable delay in putting in place a care package for him.

At the time of publication, the Council have accepted recommendations (i) and (ii) and will act upon them accordingly. They have not accepted recommendation (iii).

The council did subsequently agree to implement the third recommendation.

Overview
The complainants, Mr and Mrs C and Mr D, had objected to the siting of the new Uddingston Grammar School (the New School) when the planning applications were submitted . Following the decision by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to approve the applications, they remained concerned about the way the planning conditions were enforced and, in particular, about measures designed to minimise flooding.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) alternative sites for the New School were not properly considered (upheld);
• (b) the number and wording of planning conditions were inappropriate (upheld); and
• (c) the monitoring and approval of the conditions relating to flood prevention were not carried out properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) remind staff of the need to ensure evaluation tools are not only used but used appropriately;
• (ii) review their policy on standard conditions and consider providing guidance to planning officers about when these should and could be altered;
• (iii) review their policy on the appointment of consultants, in an effort to avoid situations where they and an applicant or developer are using the same advisers and, where this is not possible, ensure this is noted and managed; and
• (iv) apologise to Mr and Mrs C and Mr D for the failings identified in this report.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the Dental Practice (the Practice) he was registered with. In February 2009 Mr C complained that they failed to provide agreed treatment and were unprofessional in their behaviour toward him and in the service they provided.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not appropriately treated by the Practice (upheld); and
• (b) the Practice failed to follow the NHS complaints procedure for Family Health Services (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) urgently implement policies to ensure that clinical information is appropriately recorded and protected, and policies and procedures are in place to safeguard all clinical information generated;
• (ii) take steps to ensure that all staff are aware of these policies and implement them in their working practice;
• (iii) take steps to identify all missing clinical information and to try to retrieve this;
• (iv) apologise to Mr C for the failures identified in this report;
• (v) urgently establishes a complaints procedure in line with the standards set out by the General Dental Council and the NHS complaints procedure; and
• (vi) apologise to Mr C for the poor handling of his complaint.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about Fife Council (the Council)'s failure to take effective enforcement action against the owners of a neighbouring disused quarry site. In particular, he was concerned that the Council had failed to ensure that the owners of the site had complied with the conditions of a Planning Enforcement Notice, which they issued in 2004.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take effective enforcement action against unauthorised works at a quarry site next to Mr C's home (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) obtain the services of an independent consultant, obtained from a list provided by the Royal Town Planning Institute, to prepare a report within two months with recommendations on the steps which should be taken by the Council to ensure final compliance with the Enforcement Notice. The Council should consider this report at a meeting of the appropriate Committee within one month of receipt and put in hand the measures it considers appropriate to ensure that works are completed as quickly as possible and within a specified timescale;
• (ii) write to all residents neighbouring the site to apologise for their failures to take effective enforcement action in order to protect their amenity; and
• (iii) carry out a full review of enforcement practice within the Council to ensure that similar situations do not arise again. Such a review should consider the relevant planning circulars and advice.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns regarding the orthopaedic treatment he received at Stirling Royal Infirmary (the Hospital). Mr C was involved in a motor cycle accident on 11 September 2007 and he sustained a fracture of his right tibia. He underwent an operation to treat this fracture on 12 September 2007 and he expressed concern with the standard of this surgical treatment.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that a nail inserted in Mr C's right tibia was excessively long and resulted in Mr C suffering unnecessary pain and inconvenience (upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by Fife Council (the Council) of applications for a single wind turbine and related proposals near to her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) in reaching a decision on a request made for a screening opinion (the Screening Opinion) on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in respect of an application for planning consent for the wind turbine (the Application), the Council's planning case officer (Officer 1) failed to have regard to appropriate guidance on EIA procedures and that she made statements to support her view that an EIA was not required, which she later contradicted (not upheld);
• (b) the Council, when presented with massive local opposition to the Application and Mrs C's letter of objection of 28 November 2007, failed to reconsider the need for an EIA (not upheld); and
• (c) the report to committee on the Application failed fully to consider Mrs C's letter of objection and the Council's finalised guidance on wind energy, misrepresented the differences with another current proposal, and contradicted statements made earlier in the Screening Opinion (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview
The complainant (Miss C) complained about her general practitioner practice (the Practice), saying that they had removed her, her mother (Mrs C) and her father (Mr C) from their list of patients.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice wrongly removed Miss C, Mrs C and Mr C from their patient list (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the service provided to her by Perth and Kinross Council (the Council). These included: data protection issues; the Council's arrangements to uplift and store her personal belongings on her being made homeless; and the way in which the Council dealt with her mainstream housing application. Mrs C was advised to progress any concerns relating to the use of her personal data through the Information Commissioner's Office. The issues in relation to the storage of her goods and her housing application have been investigated by the Ombudsman.

Specific complains and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's arrangements to take Mrs C's personal belongings into storage when she was made homeless were inadequate (upheld); and
• (b) there were failings in the Council's administration of Mrs C's mainstream housing application and the assessment of rent arrears (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) advise him of the measures introduced as a result of their review of all homeless processes to ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen in future;
• (ii) share this investigation report with their insurers, so that they may reconsider if any liability attaches to the Council for the loss of Mrs C's property; and
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for the poor service experienced, which led to the loss of her belongings.