North East Scotland

Overview

The complainant alleged that Charing Cross Housing Association Ltd (the Association) had failed to identify and repair a potential leak above his flat over the last 7 years.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about the alleged failure of the Association to identify and repair a potential leak above Mr C’s flat (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association continues to follow the current course of action they have communicated to Mr C in relation to the potential leak.

Overview

The complainant was concerned that, on several occasions in October 2004, a hospital failed to admit him as an in-patient or to give him appropriate medical treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  lack of appropriate medical treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  poor record keeping (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations.

The complainant was unhappy at the length of time it took a hospital to inform her late husband's GP of his death. She was further aggrieved that the hospital sent, some months later, an appointment card for her late husband.

The complaint concerned the way a nurse carried out a feeding procedure on the complainant's young child (Baby C) and the nurse's attitude towards the complainant (Ms C).

The complainant raised concerns about his session with a counsellor, including an alleged breach of confidentiality, the counsellor's attitude and the lack of information given to him about the counselling. He also complained about the handling of his complaint.

Dr C complained of delay in providing medicines when his wife was discharged from hospital and of the attitude of ward staff and staff at Accident & Emergency.

The complaint concerned whether it was appropriate for a patient (Mr C) to be left sitting in a chair unattended in view of his medical condition and as a result he sustained a fall. The complainant was also concerned that it was the patient who advised her that a fall had occurred, rather than nursing or medical staff.

Mr A was referred to the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit (SLTU) in Edinburgh by his Consultant in Glasgow, for assessment for inclusion on the transplant list but was not considered suitable for inclusion. Mr A's uncle sought to challenge this decision and obtain a second opinion. This took several months and unfortunately Mr A died before a reassessment was possible. Mr C complained that Mr A had not received adequate care or proper assessment.

Mr A was referred to the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit (SLTU) in Edinburgh by his Consultant in Glasgow, for assessment for inclusion on the transplant list but was not considered suitable for inclusion. Mr A's uncle sought to challenge this decision and obtain a second opinion. This took several months and unfortunately Mr A died before a reassessment was possible. Mr C complained that Mr A had not received adequate care or proper assessment.

The complainant (Ms C) raised various issues a number of concerns after her mother (Mrs A) died following cardiac surgery