South of Scotland

Overview

Ms C's children were removed from a School (School X) in Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) area, and Ms C was unhappy about the standard of communication from the Council in response to her concerns about this.  Following completion of the Council's complaint procedure, Ms C complained to the Ombudsman that the communication during the complaints process and following the Council's final decision was also inadequate.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that communication from the Council in response to Ms C's concerns about her children's removal from School X and the subsequent handling of her complaint was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         ensure that information given to complainants at the end of each stage of the complaints process is sufficient to allow them to consider whether or not to proceed;
• (ii)        emphasise in guidance to relevant staff that when faults have been identified, consideration is given to making an appropriate apology and information given of any action taken to improve Council process and procedures as a result of their complaint; and
• (iii)       formally apologise to Ms C for the failing identified by the Panel on 2 December 2005.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a delay by a GP (the GP) at the Medical Practice in referring her husband (Mr C) to hospital for a urology opinion and as a result this delayed treatment for a prostate tumour.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was a delay by the GP in referring Mr C for a urology opinion (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the GP shares this report with his appraiser and reflects on the actions which had been taken.

The GP has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care which her diabetic husband (Mr C) had received when he attended the Western Isles Hospital (Hospital 1) with serious foot ischaemia.  Mrs C complained about a consultant’s (Consultant 1) behaviour, the delay in referring Mr C to the Consultant Vascular Surgeon (Consultant 2) and that unsuitable medication was prescribed to her husband.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Consultant 1's behaviour was inappropriate when he explained the results of his examination to Mr and Mrs C (no finding);
• (b)  Consultant 1 delayed writing to Consultant 2 after seeing Mr C (not upheld);
• (c)  Consultant 1 did not reflect the urgency of Mr C's condition in his referral to Consultant 2 (upheld); and
• (d)  Consultant 1 prescribed Voltarol to Mr C and this is not suitable for diabetics (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  review its procedures for urgent referrals; and
• (ii)  apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failure to adequately convey the urgency of Mr C's condition in their letter of referral.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment her husband (Mr C) received at Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock in February 2005.  In particular she was concerned that there was a delay by staff in reaching a diagnosis and that medication which was administered was not written in the medical records.  Mrs C also complained about the way her complaint was handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay in reaching a diagnosis (not upheld);
• (b)  staff failed to record when medication was administered to Mr C (not upheld); and
• (c)  there was inadequate complaints handling (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  bring to the attention of staff the comments made by Adviser 1 in regard to the failure to recognise the decrease in Mr C's kidney function from 17 February 2005 and the monitoring of his Gentamicin levels;
• (ii)  conduct an audit of the nursing records for Ward 3A to ascertain if they are in accordance with the standards as set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Council; and
• (iii)  conduct a review of their complaints procedure to ensure that staff are acting in accordance with the National Guidance.

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

Overview

East Lothian Council (the Council) had granted planning permission in 2001 for a new building development near the home of the complainant (Mrs C).  During construction it became apparent that a proposed balcony was likely to lead to a loss of privacy for Mrs C.  This had not been considered when planning consent had been granted.  When the issue came to light, Mrs C complained that this was not dealt with appropriately.  In particular, she was aggrieved that the Council were unable to enforce the proposed solution of screening on the balcony.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to take appropriate action when they became aware that the issue of loss of privacy had not been considered at the planning application stage (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not respond appropriately to Mrs C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council

• (i)  approach Mrs C to seek her agreement in pursuing a joint reference  to the District Valuer for an assessment of the impact of the overlooking only from the balcony on the value of her home with a view to the Council reimbursing Mrs C for any loss in value ; and
• (ii)  should also meet the costs of the reference.

Overview

The aggrieved (Mr A) raised a number of concerns, through his Member of the Scottish Parliament (Mr C), about the treatment received by his wife (Mrs A) prior to and during an admission to Raigmore Hospital (the Hospital) in 2000.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the hospital admission was caused by the staff's failure to ensure that Mrs A received vitamin B12 injections (not upheld); and
• (b)  staff incorrectly stated there were traces of benzodiazepines in Mrs A's urine samples and this led to Mr A being interviewed by the police (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a complaint that she visited her General Medical Practice's Well Woman Clinic and a smear test was carried out without a reasonable degree of care.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that a smear test was performed without a reasonable degree of care (not upheld).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has made no recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the care and treatment provided to his wife (Mrs C) by both Grampian NHS Board and Highland NHS Board.  Mr C said that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing Mrs C's condition.  This led to a delay in her treatment and Mrs C died.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was an unreasonable delay in diagnosing Mrs C's condition (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) believes she was incorrectly advised of the application of administration charges by East Lothian Council (the Council) in connection with a common repair scheme, and that subsequent Council contact and documents did not contradict this belief.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which I have investigated is that Ms C was provided with inaccurate and misleading information about administration charges that the Council would make (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make a courtesy payment of £100 to Ms C;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the misunderstanding and lack of clarity in their documents; and
• (iii) advise owners of methods of payment, reasons for charges and methods of calculation in writing at the beginning of the common repairs process.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the way Orkney Islands Council (the Council) handled his request to reimburse his (and his wife's) travel and accommodation expenses after he turned down a job with them.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed properly to handle Mr C's request to reimburse his travel and accommodation expenses after he turned down a job offer (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council reimburse Mr C's reasonable travel and accommodation expenses.  She also recommends that any correspondence sent to candidates calling them for interview either makes specific references to the circumstances when such expenses are not paid or, alternatively, refers to the enclosure, 'Interview Expenses'.

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