South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) had failed to handle a number of his complaints in line with their Complaints Procedure.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to handle Mr C's complaints in line with the Complaints Procedure (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council consider whether or not to invoke their Unacceptable Actions Policy against Mr C, given that his communication approach has significantly contributed to the problems around the handling of his complaints.

One of the reasons for the Council to invoke the policy is that they must consider whether or not their current handling of Mr C's complaints represents a good use of public resources.  If action was to be taken to more effectively manage Mr C's correspondence, I believe that would be a strong case to show that the Council are taking into consideration the principles of 'Best Value'.  The Council have to seriously consider whether or not their management of Mr C's complaints and correspondence is an effective use of public resource.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that a local enterprise company did not adequately assess the possible economic impact on his business of a project they were funding.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise did not adequately assess the impact on Mr C's hotel business of a project they were funding (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C), and two others, raised concerns about the way in which their claims for damage to their cars in a school car park during a storm were handled by The Moray Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not handle Mrs C's complaint about her car damage appropriately (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were unhappy with how Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership (DGHP) had dealt with water ingress to their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure by DGHP to ensure that Mr and Mrs C's home was wind and watertight, and failure to deal with repairs and redecoration appropriately (not upheld); and
• (b) poor communication within and from DGHP, including handling of eviction proceedings and complaint handling (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that DGHP:

• (i) review their decision on whether or not to waive the three months rent (see paragraph 27); and
• (ii) inform her of the outcomes of the possible solutions identified to communication problems i.e. how the problems have been resolved (see paragraph 18).

Since the recommendations were drafted, DGHP offered Mr and Mrs C £398 for redecoration costs.  In addition, they have provided information to demonstrate that the problems identified in paragraph 18 have been resolved.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the treatment she received at Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock (Hospital 1).  She complained of the delay in diagnosing her uterine fibroids and subsequent Benign Intracranial Hypertension (BIH), as well as raising concerns regarding the side effects resulting from her treatment, and the lack of prior information relating to these.  Mrs C also raised issues regarding her pain management upon admission to Hospital 1 and also the delay in issuing her discharge letter to her General Practitioner (GP).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C's uterine fibroids were not diagnosed within a reasonable timescale (not upheld);
• (b) the Prostap therapy caused severe side effects which were not explained in advance (not upheld);
• (c) upon admission to Hospital 1, adequate pain relief was not initially provided (not upheld);
• (d) upon discharge from Hospital 1, there was a delay in issuing the discharge letter to Mrs C's GP (not upheld); and
• (e) when the lumbar puncture was carried out at Hospital 1, the Cerebrospinal Fluid opening pressure was not taken and this led to a delay in diagnosing Mrs C's BIH (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no formal recommendations to make but does suggest that the Board considers making the manufacturer's patient information leaflet available to patients prior to the commencement of Prostap therapy.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the assessment of her mother's (Mrs A) financial assets by East Lothian Council (the Council).  Mrs C considered the Council had acted improperly in including the nominal value of her mother's home which she had transferred ownership of, for 'love, favour and affection', to her family 11 years prior to entering the care home.  Mrs C also argued that the Council's complaint process was flawed to the extent that the legal advice it offered to the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (SWCRC) was deficient.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's decision to include the value of the property in their calculation of Mrs C's financial assessment was administratively flawed (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to provide adequate legal advice to the SWCRC who upheld Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council undertake a new financial assessment of Mrs A's assets, disregarding the nominal value of the property disposed of in 1994.

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

Further Action

There is a considerable overlap in the issues raised in this case with one previously reported on by this office in December 2006 (Report No 200503530).  That report and this raise issues about the scope for different interpretations of a number of aspects of the relevant Scottish Guidance throughout Scotland and the potentially inequitable outcome of this varied interpretation.  The reports both also highlight the lack of an appropriate independent appeal mechanism to deal with financial assessments.  This report also raises the question of how the value of an asset is calculated as it appears that again there is no specific guidance on this and the potential for uncertainty and geographical variation.  The previous report was forwarded to the Scottish Executive Health Department by the Ombudsman's office to highlight our concerns.  This case (and a number of others currently with this office) illustrate that these concerns persist and once again the Ombudsman's office will forward a copy of this report to the Scottish Government Health Directorates to draw the matter to their attention and seek their views on how best to resolve the difficulties being encountered.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about a consultation with her GP on 9 February 2006, in that the GP failed to examine her properly or prescribe appropriate medication for a skin condition.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that at a consultation on 9 February 2006, the GP failed to examine Ms C properly or prescribe appropriate medication (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained about the care her late husband (Mr C) received in Ayrshire Central Hospital (the Hospital).  In particular, she was concerned about the rapid deterioration in Mr C's condition during his stay.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the care Mr C received was unsatisfactory (upheld);
• (b) communication from senior medical staff was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (c) the follow-up to Mrs C's complaint was poorly handled (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board:

• (i) undertake training in the recognition of acute physical illness in patients on mental health wards using a well-recognised scoring system such as MEWS (medical early warning score);
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for the failings in the care of Mr C identified in this report;
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for failing to provide an explanation for the deterioration in Mr C's physical health during his stay in the Hospital; and
• (iv) take steps to ensure that the findings of critical incident reviews are fully incorporated in their responses to complainants.

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

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) had a number of concerns about the care and treatment given to her late mother (Mrs A) at Ayr Hospital (the Hospital).  In particular, she felt that the Hospital had not correctly dealt with problems Mrs A had had with her legs and had failed to provide Mrs A with treatment in the days prior to her death.  Miss C was also concerned that medical records recorded a conversation between herself and a consultant which she said could not have happened on the date given.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was not appropriate (partially upheld); and
• (b) information recording a conversation in the medical records was inaccurate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board apologise to Miss C for the failure to appropriately assess Mrs A's needs following the decision to end active treatment and for failing to ensure all relevant notes were made available to the Ombudsman's office during the initial investigation of this complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of two planning applications submitted for the erection of a dwelling-house on a site close to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council in their handling of the planning applications acted unreasonably and ignored the views submitted by the objectors (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.