North East Scotland

Overview

The Complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment he received for his broken leg at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee between September 2001 and January 2002.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the original external fixator in his leg should not have been removed without pain relief, and should not have been removed from Mr C’s leg while there was non-union of bones (not upheld);
• (b) the shortness in Mr C’s right leg should have been corrected (not upheld); and
• (c) inappropriate advice was given in January 2002 that Mr C's bones were united enough to benefit from intensive physiotherapy, and that an x-ray should have been taken before such advice was given (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

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

• (i) should include doctors' note keeping as part of their yearly appraisal; and
• (ii) perform an audit to ensure that record keeping at the Hospital is of a sufficiently high standard and complies with the standard set down by the General Medical Council's Good Practice Guidelines.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that Glasgow City Council had installed a driveway outside his house which was unusable, because of a steep camber that caused his car to ground, but had said they would not prioritise the road for resurfacing to correct the camber.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the Council's failure to prioritise a road for resurfacing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that her mother (Mrs A) had not been properly supervised by staff resulting in a number of falls which were not properly recorded or notified.  Ms C also complained that she was not properly notified of her mother’s death and that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board failed to respond properly to her complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to properly supervise Mrs A and allowed her to fall on a number of occasions which were not properly reported (not upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to properly notify Ms C of her mother’s death (not upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to respond to her complaint accurately (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) alleged that a verbal payment agreement for Council Tax was not recorded or honoured by Aberdeen City Council.  It is also alleged that Council staff treated Mrs C abruptly when the complaint was initially raised.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that

• (a) the council failed to adequately record a verbal agreement reached between Mrs C and a member of staff regarding her payment schedule for Council Tax. Mrs C claims that this error resulted in a summary warrant being issued (upheld).
• (b) staff failed to treat Mrs C with an open mind – Mrs C claims she was not believed by staff when referring to this previous agreement and was treated abruptly (not upheld).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) devise and pilot a clear procedure for staff updating customer records once a verbal payment agreement has been reached via a face to face discussion. Ideally, this would include the production of a signed agreement which both parties can keep as a record. This would clearly prevent similar complaints from arising again; and
• (ii) write an apology to Mrs C for the inconvenience and distress caused by the issuing of an unnecessary Summary Warrant.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a denture made by the dentist and about the dentist's attitude.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the fit of the denture (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint was raised by the Housing Association acting as management agent for the Housing Support Provider (HSP).  The Housing Association complained that Dundee City Council had failed to properly administer the HSP's application and to resolve the problem once it was identified.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to award the HSP an interim contract (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to take action to correct the error once identified (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council award the HSP an interim contract with immediate effect.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and met with the HSP.  A way forward has been agreed by both parties and the Ombudsman considers the matter resolved.

Overview

A complaint was made on behalf of a student about the handling of his appeal against the University of Aberdeen's decision to terminate his candidature on a teaching course.  This included his contention that the presence as Convener of the Student Progress Committee of a member of the department in which the original decision was made amounted to an appearance of bias.  He was also unhappy about the provision and use of evidence.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The matters that have been investigated are that:

• (a) reasons given for the decision by the Student Progress Committee were inadequate (upheld);
• (b) the Student Progress Committee was not impartial (not upheld);
• (c) evidence was disclosed before the Student Progress Committee without proper notice (not upheld);
• (d) the Student Progress Committee did not consider all relevant evidence (not upheld); and
• (e) the Court Appeal Committee's handling of the appeal and the reasons given for their decision was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the University issue guidance on the need to provide students with sufficient information about the reasoning behind the decision for them to make an appeal and to include in their standard letters an indication that they can request clarification if they require to do so before submitting an appeal.

The University has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the University notify her when the recommendation has been implemented.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about how Aberdeenshire Council handled a planning representation and the inadequate manner in which they dealt with the subsequent complaint about this.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a Council employee provided misinformation by advising that objections and concerns about a Planning Application Submission would remain confidential unless plans went to Committee (not upheld);
• (b) the Council did not respond in good time to the subsequent complaint about the misinformation they provided (not upheld);
• (c) the Council inadequately responded to concerns by stating that the linking of two neighbouring houses by an extension, did not contradict their policy HOU/7 (House Extensions), about protecting the character and amenity of existing houses and surroundings (not upheld);
• (d) the Chief Executive and Area Manager provided ambiguous and contradictory replies to the complaint (not upheld); and
• (e) the Council inadequately addressed the key issues that they breached Ms C's confidentiality and misused her personal data by publishing Ms C's objections (to a Planning Application Submission) on its website (upheld).

The complaints at (a) and (b) were not upheld as they were resolved by the Council before Ms C came to the Ombudsman.

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Ms C for the failure identified, and that they respond to Ms C's question about possible breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

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

Overview

The complainant considered that his father's death in February 2005, aged 69, was hastened by his care and treatment by a GP Practice that month, for example, that they did not treat his illness appropriately and treated him less well because of prejudice about his alcohol history.  The GPs had said his father had gastritis, but, less than a fortnight later, he was dead from multi-organ failure, heart attack, pancreatitis and alcoholic liver disease.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice's care and treatment on 17 and 18 February 2005 were inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about her housing circumstances, specifically in relation to the condition her current maisonette was in when allocated to her in 2004, to the attitude of a Housing Officer who visited her home and at the failure of the Glasgow Housing Association (the Association) to rehouse her husband and herself.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Association offered Mr and Mrs C their present home in May 2004 with poor flooring (not upheld);
• (b) the Association did not properly investigate Mrs C's complaints about the attitude of a Housing Officer who visited her home on 29 July 2005 (not upheld); and
• (c) the only offers of permanent rehousing made by the Association have been unsuitable (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no specific recommendation to make.