South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the planning advice given to him concerning a plot of land he wished to purchase.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not given an explanation for the reasons why the development plot was affected by a change of circumstances or why the definitive advice given to him in October 2004 did not apply (not upheld);
• (b) Mr C's objections to planning permission were not taken into account and he was not advised that planning permission was granted on 6 April 2006 (upheld); and
• (c) the Council delayed in responding to Mr C's correspondence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise to staff that care should be taken in responding to correspondence and that replies given to members of the public address the concerns raised and be made in a timely fashion.  She also recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for failing to advise him from the outset that planning permission had been granted.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way South Ayrshire Council (the Council) tried to extinguish the equestrian rights of way over a pathway where such rights existed and where the landowner had placed barriers to prevent horses from using the pathway.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to maintain the right of way as per their responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (upheld);
• (b) delayed in seeking an Extinguishment Order in respect of the right of way (upheld); and
• (c) failed to pass the matter to the Scottish Executive for determination within a reasonable timescale (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take prompt action to ensure that it complies with its statutory obligations under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 in relation to the pathway; and
• (ii) introduce a robust procedure to ensure that it administers its responsibilities under the Countryside (Scotland ) Act 1967 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 within acceptable timescales.

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

Overview

The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, raised concerns about the conduct of an investigation carried out by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission) into allegations made anonymously against a member of staff employed in a nursing home owned by Mr and Mrs C.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Care Commission's initial investigation was disproportionate to the complaint and should have been dealt with at Level 1 of the Care Commission's investigative process (not upheld);
• (b) the professional judgement of the Care Commission officer was compromised by previous complaints made by Mr and Mrs C into their investigations (not upheld); and
• (c) given that the Care Commission's process was reviewed after their complaint, it was unreasonable that the Care Commission officers were exonerated (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mrs C is disabled and had been assessed by her local Council as requiring Community Care.  She chose to receive Direct Payments and employ her own personal assistants to provide this, under a national scheme administered by each local Council.  In 2005 she moved to live in the South Ayrshire Council (the Council) area.  Mrs C was concerned about the Council assessment of her needs under the Council's Direct Payments.  In addition, Mrs C was assessed as requiring adaptations to the bathroom in her new home.  The Council said they would support an application for a grant for a wet-floor shower area.  Mrs C complained that the Council had not taken into account her need for a bath for health reasons.  This latter point was dealt with by a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) of the Council and not upheld.  Mrs C said she felt the CRC did not give her complaint adequate consideration and that the recommendation for regular reviews was not followed by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the CRC did not give Mrs C's complaint about the Council's bathing assessment adequate consideration (not upheld);
• (b) Mrs C was not allowed to make her case in full to the CRC and was not allowed to take breaks (not upheld);
• (c) the CRC's recommendations were not followed and reviews of Mrs C's needs were not carried out sufficiently regularly (not upheld);
• (d) the Council mishandled Mrs C's application for Direct Payments (not upheld);
• (e) the Council did not provide Mrs C with sufficient support to allow her to administer the Direct Payments (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council's response to her complaints about the Direct Payments was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the guidance given to members of staff preparing reports and documentation for CRCs to ensure that panel members are fully aware of all relevant legislation, guidance and policy and provided with all relevant documents held by the Council;
• (ii) highlight in guidance to CRC panel members that they should remain sensitive to the needs of disabled complainants; and
• (iii) use this complaint as a case study with complaints handling staff to emphasis the importance of dealing with complaints as a whole and of being flexible in their approach.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised some concerns that he was treated inappropriately by a consultant (Clinician 1) during a consultation.  Mr C also suggested that Clinician 1's suggested treatment was inappropriate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the conduct of Clinician 1 during the consultation was inappropriate (not upheld); and
• (b) the treatment suggested by Clinician 1 was inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for Clinician 1's failure to clarify the significance of lifestyle rather than sexuality when taking a history from Mr C during the consultation; and
• (ii) ensure Mr C's medical records are amended, where possible, to remove the term 'homosexuality' where it refers to a medical condition, including the GP records, as this is inappropriate.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) submitted objections to a proposed development which was to be erected near their home.  The objections were submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) within the required time frame, however, the objections were not considered when the application was reviewed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to consider objections when granting approval for a planning application (not upheld); and
• (b) failed to handle the complaint in line with the complaints procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council repeat their initial offer of meeting reasonable legal expenses incurred by Mr and Mrs C as suggested in earlier correspondence.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by The Moray Council (the Council) of an application by his neighbours (Mr and Mrs N) to alter and extend their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to conduct a competent and impartial evaluation and assessment of Mr and Mrs C's objections to Mr and Mrs N's planning application (partially upheld);
• (b) negotiated what they perceived to be a solution to the issue of privacy without involving Mr and Mrs C and to the exclusion of other solutions (not upheld); and
• (c) did not properly handle their complaint (not upheld).

As the investigation progressed, issues arose concerning the implementation of the planning consent.  I, therefore, agreed with Mr and Mrs C and informed the Council that we would investigate that the Council:

• (d) did not take appropriate action in respect of deviations by Mr and Mrs N from the approved plans (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise for the failing identified under head (a)
• (ii) ensure that action is taken to resolve the issue of the oil storage tank as soon as possible; and
• (iii) review whether and how they should involve affected parties in reaching decisions on issues of privacy.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment of her father (Mr A) during the final months of his life while he was a patient of Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board).  She was particularly concerned with the administration of drugs to her father and the palliative care he received.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board's administration of Amisulpride to Mr A was not appropriate (not upheld); and
• (b) the Board did not provide adequate palliative care to Mr A (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Mr A's family for the inadequacy of the palliative care afforded to Mr A to the extent that the use of syringe drivers would have been a more appropriate method of pain management than fentanyl patches.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) and his wife run a holiday cottage business in an island village in the area of the Highland Council (the Council).  Mr C claimed that the level of parking in adjacent premises used as a guesthouse and as a restaurant had led to access problems for him and his clients and that the Council had not ensured an appropriate level of parking provision for the adjacent premises.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed over a number of years to ensure that the proprietors of the adjacent premises provided adequate car parking (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Council handled a planning application for change of use consent for a property close to her own.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to follow proper procedures and law, in that the application for change of use was considered before the expiry date for representations (not upheld);
• (b) ignored Ms C's material representations (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to submit the application back to Committee although material representations were received in advance of the expiry date, thus depriving Councillors of all the relevant facts (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.