South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns that, at a consultation with an orthopaedic consultant on 7 June 2005, an incorrect decision was taken to treat a knee injury with analgesia rather than surgery and that he had to have an operation carried out privately to resolve the matter.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that, at an appointment with an orthopaedic consultant on 7 June 2005, the clinical decision to treat Mr C's knee injury by analgesia rather than surgery was inappropriate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about how East Lothian Council (the Council) prepared proposals for the development of a play area immediately adjacent to his flat and their alleged undue delay in taking action on noise nuisance and detriment to privacy he is experiencing.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) in preparing their proposals for the play area, failed properly to apply their own Local Plan policies and to anticipate the likely detrimental effect to residents in the development in which Mr C resides (not upheld); and
• (b) delayed unduly in taking appropriate action on noise nuisance and detriment to privacy, preferably by relocating the play area (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that following the period of their proposed monitoring, relevant officers of the Council report to the appropriate Committee on options for the play area including the residents' request that it be closed and relocated elsewhere.  The Council informed me that they would agree a programme of monitoring with affected property owners and would report the results, together with any residents' views to the Council's Cabinet.  The report would include a recommendation as to what further action, if any, should be taken with respect to the location and operation of the play area.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment and advice which she received in relation to her heart condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C was given conflicting interpretations of echocardiography examinations undertaken between 2002 and 2005 and that she was given erroneous advice about her condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C)'s advocacy worker raised a complaint on his behalf against the State Hospitals Board for Scotland (the Board) about the way they had investigated Mr C's complaint about the conduct of a student nurse.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Board inadequately responded to Mr C's complaint about the conduct of a student nurse (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board remind staff that they should ensure that all aspects of a complaint are addressed when providing the response.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was overseeing work being carried out at her father’s house by contractors employed by East Lothian Council (the Council).  Her purse was stolen whilst the work was being carried out.  Mrs C complained that the Council did not take adequate steps to ensure that their contractors’ employees were suitable to be allowed access to the homes of vulnerable people.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to ensure that their contractors, who had access to the homes of vulnerable people, including Mrs C's father, had sufficient procedures in place to ensure that their employees were suitable to do so (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) works with its Adult Protection Committee to establish good practice guidelines for Council and contractor employees working in the homes of vulnerable people; and
• (ii) considers including in its revised Corporate Procurement Procedures manual, guidance on the protection of vulnerable people when work is being carried out on their homes.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment he received from Western Isles NHS Board (Board 1) and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board (Board 2) following a sudden onset of severe leg pain in November 2005.  Mr C also complained about the handling of his complaints by both Boards.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Board 1 failed to provide timely or appropriate care and treatment to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) Board 1 failed to promptly or adequately address Mr C's complaints (not upheld);
• (c) Board 2 failed to provide timely or appropriate care and treatment to Mr C (not upheld) and;
• (d) Board 2 failed to promptly or adequately address Mr C's complaints (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the way in which Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) handled two applications for outline planning permission.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council raised numerous obstacles delaying the progress of the applications. In particular, Mr C claimed that the subject of road access was only mentioned seven months after the submission of the first application (not upheld);
• (b) the Council reneged on an agreement reached in September 2006 that, if the access road was included in the application, they would validate it and recommend it for approval (not upheld);
• (c) the Council failed to advise of a change of policy (Policy ENV14) and the likely effects of that on Mr C's application (not upheld);
• (d) Policy ENV14 is insufficiently specific, leaving it open to differing interpretations (not upheld); and
• (e) Council officers applied Policy ENV14 inconsistently in different Council areas (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Ms C called NHS 24 when her mother (Mrs A)'s condition deteriorated.  She was concerned that she did not receive accurate information on the night of the call about the time it might take for a GP to attend.  She was also unhappy that she had been informed only one GP was on duty overnight to cover the large, rural area where Mrs A lived.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the communication about GP attendance time was inadequate (upheld); and
• (b) GP out-of-hours cover for the Borders NHS Board (the Board) area was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Board review their procedures for keeping patients who are referred from NHS24 informed about likely GP attendance, when the GP is not in the hub when the referral is received;
• (ii) NHS24 and the Board both apologise to Mrs A's family for not appropriately communicating to Ms C the difficulties in arranging GP attendance and the likely time this would take; and
• (iii) NHS24 share with her the results of their audit of home visits that are made within one hour.

The Board and NHS24 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

* Ms C's complaint was fully supported by her sister and they brought the complaint to the Ombudsman's office together.  For clarity, I refer only to Ms C in this report.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) are the visually impaired parents of two children, the younger of whom (Child A) is visually impaired.  North Ayrshire Council (the Council) arranged transport to and from nursery school for Child A, with another child and a Council-employed escort.  However, Mrs C considered that, as Child A's mother, she should have been able to act as the escort.  She raised concerns about lack of comparability with her elder daughter's treatment, her younger daughter's right to be taken to nursery by her mother and denial of her own rights as a mother to take her daughter to school herself.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's transport arrangements should have included Mrs C as the escort (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) received debt advice from North Ayrshire Council (the Council), and complained that they had not advised him properly about the actions of one of his creditors.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's debt advice service gave inadequate advice in relation to one of Mr C's debts (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to respond correctly to a complaint about this matter (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.