South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was of the view that The Highland Council (the Council)’s procedure for dealing with housing improvement grants was discriminatory against disabled people as her application for a grant was refused because she had arranged for improvement works on her home to begin before the grant was approved by the Council.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the process for assessing Mrs C’s retrospective housing grant application was neither clear nor robust (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the way Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) responded to concerns a group of parents had raised about the running of a secondary school (the School).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not adequately investigate complaints brought by 30 parents about the School (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Mr B) raised a number of concerns about the way an outline planning application (the Application) for the Highland Housing Fair (the Fair) had been handled by The Highland Council (the Council).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to engage in adequate consultation with Inverness South Community Council (ISCC) and guidelines for consultation were not followed (not upheld);
• (b) emails between Council officers, and Council officers and the applicant, show that the outcome of the Application was pre-judged (not upheld);
• (c) details of the Application did not appear in the Council's Weekly List (not upheld);
• (d) there was collusion in the planning process given that the applicant, Highland Housing Alliance (HHA), is funded by the Council (not upheld);
• (e) planning permission should not have been granted as the land was marked as Green Wedge (refers to land covered by Policy 41 of the Council's Local Plan) in the Inverness Local Plan (the Local Plan) (not upheld);
• (f) information (such as plot layout, house type and site analysis) which was available prior to the Inverness Area Planning Application Committee (the Committee) hearing on 30 January 2007 was not submitted to the Committee (not upheld);
• (g) the outcome of the Application was a foregone conclusion as shown by the fact that the Report to the Committee was dated 12 January 2007 (not upheld);
• (h) the Application inaccurately referred to the land in question as being vacant when it was in fact farmland (not upheld);
• (i) there should have been developer contributions for the site as there was no benefit to the community from the development (not upheld);
• (j) outline planning permission was granted prior to a report on road infrastructure being submitted by Transport Scotland (not upheld); and
• (k) a link road had not yet been built and the cap for housing was at 600houses (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mrs C, raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment provided to her late mother, Mrs A, while she had been a patient at Ayr Hospital (Hospital 1).  She said she felt Mrs A had been wrongly given Diazepam and that the nursing care was inadequate.  She believed that the care had led to a significant deterioration in Mrs A's condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the nursing care provided to Mrs A was inadequate (not upheld);
• (b) Mrs A did not receive appropriate treatment and was wrongly prescribed Diazepam (upheld);
• (c) Mrs A's family was not given sufficient time to consider a proposed move of hospital (not upheld);
• (d) Mrs A's transfer to another hospital was carried out inappropriately (no finding); and
• (e) a conversation about Mrs A's treatment was inappropriately held in a public place (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for the failures in record-keeping, which have made it difficult for the Ombudsman's advisers to fully evaluate Mrs A's care, and for the error in their letter to Mrs C of 5 December 2006 concerning the use of Diazepam in Mrs A's care;
• (ii) provide clinical staff involved in Mrs A's care and the Board's relevant clinical director with a copy of this report; and
• (iii) provide evidence of the systems in place to monitor and audit medical and nursing records.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were unhappy with the way in which Clydesdale Housing Association (the Association) dealt with their complaints concerning allegations of anti-social behaviour by their neighbours.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) the rejection of Mr and Mrs C's request to advance to the next stage of the Association's Complaints and Appeal process following a complaint in July2006 (not upheld); and
• (b) the manner in which the Association investigated a complaint from Mr and Mrs C in September 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association consider taking steps to try to encourage Mr and Mrs C and their neighbours (Mr and Mrs B) to participate in mediation.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns with regard to a delay by East Lothian Council (the Council) in replacing windows in her home, in carrying out a repair to a damaged window lintel, and about the way her contact with the Council was recorded.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) unduly delayed in replacing the windows in Ms C's home (partially upheld);
• (b) unduly delayed in repairing a lintel above a window (upheld); and
• (c) failed to keep an accurate record of Ms C's contact with them (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Ms C for the delays which occurred in installing the new windows and for implementing the repair to the lintel above the living room window; and
• (ii) make Ms C an appropriate payment in recognition of the costs she incurred in pursuing matters with them.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, believed The Highland Council (the Council) had acted outwith procedures and in an incompetent and inconsistent way in regard to a planning application for a wind farm development (Application A).  He complained that:  the Council's actions had contravened Scottish Natural Heritage guidance; Environmental Impact Assessment guidance and European Union directives; the Council had approved the application on the basis of incompetent assessments; the Council had inappropriately circumvented proper procedures; and the Council had not acted consistently in comparison with the actions they had previously taken regarding other applications that were, in his view, similar.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council acted:

• (a) outwith procedures in regard to Application A (not upheld);
• (b) incompetently in regard to Application A (not upheld); and
• (c) inconsistently in regard to Application A (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her late father (Mr A) had not received adequate treatment from Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board) after being admitted to Ayr Hospital on 11 November 2005.  Mr A was transferred to Ayrshire Central Hospital (Hospital 2) on 20 December 2005, but died there on 27 December 2005.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr A was catheterised without his consent (upheld);
• (b) a consultant decided not to artificially hydrate Mr A (upheld);
• (c) the Board inappropriately transferred Mr A to Hospital 2 (upheld); and
• (d) the Board failed to communicate effectively with Mr A's family (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for the failure to record that verbal consent to insert the catheter had been obtained from Mr A and the failure to adhere to the General Medical Council's guidance regarding the decision not to artificially hydrate Mr A;
• (ii) review the guidelines for catheterisation in order that they make explicit reference to recording that verbal consent has been obtained;
• (iii) take steps to ensure that staff adhere to the General Medical Council's guidance when they consider withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatments, by involving the patient (or those close to the patient where the patient's wishes cannot be determined) in the decision making. Details of the decision taken should be clearly recorded in the medical records; and

• (iv) review Mr A's case in order to establish if there are any lessons that can be learned regarding the transfer of patients to other hospitals.

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

Overview

Scottish Borders Council (the Council) built a new footpath adjacent to the complainant (Mrs C)'s property.  Mrs C complained that the position of this footpath had adversely affected her privacy by directing pedestrians onto the land in front of her house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council built a footpath adjacent to Mrs C's property which directed pedestrians onto her land (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's response to Mrs C's complaint about this was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i) apologise to Mrs C and her husband for not consulting with them about the impact of the new footpath on their privacy; and
• (ii) ensure that there is appropriate consultation with residents likely to be affected by 'Safer Routes to School' projects.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by North Ayrshire Council (the Council) failed to meet his specific needs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr C claimed that with a replacement central heating system that was installed in his home by the Council failed to meet his specific needs (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.