Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant and his wife (Mr and Mrs C) moved house and relocated their sports tour package business to a town in Fife in February 2004. Shortly thereafter neighbours complained about associated activities and Fife Council (the Council) issued a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) and, after the matter was reported to the Council's Development Committee (the Committee), a Planning Enforcement Notice (PEN). Mr C appealed against the PEN to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU) and that appeal was heard before a reporter (Reporter 2) at a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) in June 2005. Reporter 2's decision was issued on 25 August 2005. Reporter 2 dismissed the appeal, confirmed the PEN subject to a number of amendments and, in a separate determination, refused an application on Mr C's behalf for expenses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) poor and/or incorrect advice was given by Council officers to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Council issued the PCN and subsequently the PEN on the basis of insufficient evidence (partially upheld to the extent of the inadequacy of the report presented to the Committee);
• (c) there was poor and inconsistent handling of matters by the Council and a failure to follow appropriate procedures (not upheld);
• (d) the SEIRU's initial appointment of a reporter (Reporter 1) did not follow relevant guidance on conflict of interest (upheld);
• (e) the PLI and related activity was handled poorly (partially upheld to the extent that not all letters were shared); and
• (f) Reporter 2, in determining the appeal, did not adequately justify his decisions by demonstrating they were based on the available evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the scope of information to be presented to the Committee on planning contravention when seeking authorisation to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action; and The Ombudsman recommends that DPEA remind their staff and panel of reporters of the need to consider whether particular appointments may be perceived as involving a conflict of interest, and that DPEA take account of ethical standards in public life in relation to such appointments.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns that she and her two children were inappropriately removed from their GP practice (the Practice)'s list because her partner (Mr B) was removed for abusive behaviour.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms C and her children were inappropriately removed from the Practice's list (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) ensure that their policy on the removal of patients from their list complies with the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and is within the spirit of the guidance available;
• (ii) ensure they have followed the Regulations and considered and followed alternative courses of action before removing a patient from their list; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms C for inappropriately removing her and her children from their list.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) relocated from Renfrewshire to North Lanarkshire in October 2006. She raised a number of complaints regarding the transfer of her social work file and care package. She complained that North Lanarkshire Council (Council 1) failed to follow their own stated procedures when taking over her care and that poor administration and communication on Council 1's part, when carrying out a community care assessment, led to the introduction of inadequate care services and the subsequent cancellation of her care package.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Council 1 failed to carry out the transfer of Ms C's social work file in line with their own procedures (not upheld);
• (b) Council 1 withdrew Ms C's care package against her wishes (no finding);
• (c) Council 1 failed to carry out an adequate occupational therapy assessment at Ms C's home (not upheld);
• (d) Council 1 failed to carry out the recommendations made as a result of the Social Work (Complaints Review) Sub-Committee's findings (not upheld); and
• (e) the care package provided by Council 1 was unsuitable to meet Ms C's assessed needs (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) consider introducing formal guidance to social work staff on inter-authority case transfers and communication with incoming service users;
• (ii) introduce a policy of requesting written confirmation of a service user's intent to cancel their care in cases where the need for care remains;
• (iii) review Ms C's case and identify ways of introducing basic care quickly, whilst needs assessments are carried out;
• (iv) prioritise the completion of Ms C's care plan;
• (v) consider ways of formally recording service users' acceptance and understanding of any proposals before finalising care plans; and
• (vi) consider ways to record service users' non-acceptance of proposals and to escalate matters through the formal complaints procedure.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Fife Council (the Council)'s decision to approve his neighbourﾒs planning application to build an extension and the way in which they responded to his enquiries.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) breached their own planning guidelines for extensions (not upheld);
• (b) failed in their duty to protect Mr C as an adjoining proprietor (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to give Mr C timely advice when requested to do so (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council write to Mr C to apologise for their failure to provide timely responses when requested to do so.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment she received at Wishaw General Hospital after she was diagnosed with cancer in 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that a consultant inappropriately told Mrs C that, '[T]here is no doubt at all that all the cancer has been removed and currently you are cured', in a letter dated 16 March 2006.  Mrs C subsequently had a recurrence of the cancer (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) apologise to Mrs C for inappropriately telling her that, '[T]here is no doubt at all that all the cancer has been removed and currently you are cured'.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns regarding the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS)'s handling of her application for Lone Parents' Grant (LPG) and Additional Childcare Grant for Lone Parents (ACG).  She complained that a delay in awarding LPG caused her undue financial hardship and she is unhappy that, following her withdrawal from her course, she was unreasonably asked to repay overpaid amounts.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C was caused undue financial hardship due to the delay in SAAS accurately assessing her entitlement to, and awarding, LPG (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that, in recognition of the inconvenience Mrs C experienced, and as a gesture of goodwill, SAAS consider waiving the overpaid amounts in respect of LPG, ACG and travel expenses.

SAAS have accepted the recommendation and have agreed to waive the overpaid amounts.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis (MS) in an Edinburgh Hospital in September 1973.  The consultant who made the diagnosis decided not to tell Mr C of his condition.  Mr C found out that he had MS in May 2005 after referral to a neurologist but only discovered his earlier diagnosis in September 2006.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C's GP practice failed to inform him of a longstanding diagnosis of MS (not upheld); and
• (b) Mr C's MS was not identified or taken into account when he was receiving treatment from Fife NHS Board (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) had erroneously classified as permitted development the construction of a raised decking structure (the Decking) adjacent to a stretch of river for which his company (the Company) owns the fishing rights.  He also complained that the Council failed to take enforcement action when they became aware of their mistake and did not responded timeously to his complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) wrongly considered that the Decking was permitted development which did not require planning permission (upheld);
• (b) inappropriately failed to take enforcement action against the owners of the property (the Owners) (not upheld); and
• (c) took an unnecessary length of time to respond to Mr C's complaints (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council take steps to ensure that:

• (i) planning officers obtain enough information about a proposed structure to be able to give specific advice rather than standard advice which may not be appropriate to the proposed structure; and
• (ii) they respond to complaints in a timely manner and according to their complaints procedure.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) was concerned that Fife Council (the Council), in the course of processing a planning application, had deleted a term in a Section 75 agreement (the Agreement - a legal agreement between a planning authority and a developer) without referring the matter back to elected members on the Council's East Area Development Committee (the Committee).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council dropped a requirement that a developer (the Developer) should demonstrate seven million pounds of membership sales for a proposed golf complex without referring this change back to the Committee (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns, alleging that the community dentist (Dentist 1) fitted a denture which had been incorrectly prepared.  Also, she was unhappy about the clinical decision which was taken to proceed with treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the community dentist (Dentist 1) proceeded with treatment using an incorrectly prepared denture (upheld); and
• (b) Mrs C subsequently disagreed with the decision taken, to continue with treatment without regard to the stressful circumstances which applied (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) identify and evaluate the measures which are now in place to prevent this occurring again;
• (ii) consider the use of a pre-extraction appointment to ensure full understanding of a treatment plan;
• (iii) draw up guidelines to consider management and consent when a patient is under particular stress;
• (iv) consider the development of a pro-forma to jointly support all clinicians' agreement that the denture made is correctly prepared; and
• (v) ensure that a full apology is made to Mrs C for the distress and discomfort caused as a result of the treatment option followed in this particular case.

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