North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about Angus Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take action on his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour at a hotel close to his home.  Furthermore, he contended that the Council failed to adhere to their customer care policy when dealing with his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to take action on his complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour at a hotel close to his home (not upheld); and
• (b)  failed to adhere to their customer care policy when dealing with his complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The parents (Mr and Mrs C) of a young adult (Miss C) who had applied to study dentistry at the University of Dundee (the University) complained on her behalf that she had been refused admission although they considered she had achieved the grades that were set out in her conditional acceptance.  They were also concerned that Miss C had not been considered for a pre-dental course and said they had found it difficult to have their complaints heard by the University.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The matters which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the information sent to UCAS by the University was ambiguous (not upheld);
• (b)  Miss C was not considered for entry on to the pre-dental course (not upheld); and
• (c)  Mr and Mrs C's complaints about this were not handled appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University:

• (i)        requests UCAS review the information on conditional offers provided to students; and
• (ii)       review their complaints procedures and information provided to complainants in the light of the concerns raised in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the hernia surgery which he had and about his post-operative nursing care.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C was asked by nursing staff to walk too early after his first operation (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr C was asked by nursing staff to walk unaided despite the fact that he complained of numbness in his leg (upheld); and
• (c)  Mr C’s operations were not carried out with a reasonable degree of skill (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Mr C for the distress caused to him with regard to complaint (b).  She also suggests that relevant staff are reminded of the importance of adequate documentation of the pre-operative consent process.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned the alleged failure by The Robert Gordon University (the University) to follow procedures when considering an appeal, including failure to consider evidence and a lack of feedback.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  failure to follow appeal procedures (not upheld);
• (b)  failure to consider evidence (not upheld); and
• (c)  lack of feedback (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the general recommendation that the University include, in the final letter issued to appellants by the Academic Registrar, an explanation of why a decision has been reached that there are no prima facie grounds for an appeal to proceed.

The University have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns regarding the installation of a bus stop outside his home.  He claimed that the Council had failed to adhere to their Customer Care Policy in locating the stop outside his home and also breached health and safety policies.  He also claimed that the Council failed to consider his privacy when deciding the location of the bus stop.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are the Council's failure to:

• (a)  adhere to health and safety legislation when deciding on the site of the bus stop (not upheld);
• (b)  adhere to the aims of the Customer Care Policy when deciding to install the bus stop (partially upheld); and
• (c)  consider the impacts on Mr C's privacy when deciding on the location of the bus stop (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)        review their procedures for locating bus stops; and
• (ii)       issue an apology to Mr C for the failure to adhere to the Customer Care Policy in relation to Mr C's complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s property was damaged by water ingress and she believed that Glasgow Housing Association (the Association) should compensate her for redecoration costs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C believed that the Association were responsible for repairing and redecorating damage to her home caused by water ingress (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the alleged failure by UHI Millennium Institute (UHIMI) to award a qualification due to an administration error and/or personal reasons of a member of staff.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that UHIMI failed to award Mr C a Certificate of Higher Education (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that UHIMI, in relation to making arrangements for Board of Governors Complaints Appeal Committee meetings and given the importance of this final stage of the internal appeals process, should consider inviting students to attend by sending a letter with a tear-off reply slip.  UHIMI should also consider contacting students by telephone to confirm their attendance, subject to the student having supplied UHIMI with correct and current details.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment which his wife (Mrs C), who suffered from liver disease, received at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (the Hospital) up to and including March 2003.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the treatment which Mrs C received was inadequate including that a liver biopsy was not carried out (not upheld); and
• (b)  staff failed to discontinue inappropriate medication (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (planning consultants acting on behalf of a client) were unhappy that, following consideration of their client's planning application by an Area Committee of Aberdeenshire Council (the Council), further objections were allowed and the application was reconsidered by the Area Committee.  The Consultants said that their clients incurred additional costs as a result of the delay.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the decision to reconsider the planning application led to unnecessary delay (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to the applicants (the Firm) for the delay in dealing with this application;
• (ii)  following receipt of documented evidence of the costs necessarily incurred in pursuing this complaint, reimburse the Consultants' fees relating to this to the Firm;
• (iii)  ensure all applications which may involve development plan departures are dealt with in line with PAN 41 unless there are demonstrable reasons why it would not be appropriate to do so;  
• (iv)  end their practice of considering applications subject to 'completion of departure proceedings'; and
• (v)  provide her with a copy of the report of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee into their decentralisation arrangements.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the way in which a dentist (the Dentist) had removed her and her children from the practice list.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C and her children were removed improperly from the Dentist's Practice list (no finding).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist familiarise himself with the regulations governing removal of NHS patients from practice lists.

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