South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding her late mother (Mrs A)'s application to purchase her council house from The Highland Council (the Council).  Mrs C felt that the Council had unnecessarily delayed the process and, as a result, the sale was not completed prior to her mother's death.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  a staff member's lack of knowledge of relevant legislation which sets out a tenant's right to buy (RTB) their council rented property resulted in a delay in the processing of the application (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council's actions delayed the processing of the application unnecessarily and the clarification of Mrs A's eligibility to buy her Council house (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant Mrs C raised a number of concerns about the treatment that her late father (Mr A) received at Ailsa Hospital, Ayr.  She complained that staff handled her father roughly; inappropriate oxygen therapy was provided; and staff failed to monitor Mr A's fluid intake.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  staff handled Mr A roughly (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr A received inappropriate oxygen therapy (partially upheld); and
• (c)  there was inadequate monitoring of Mr A's fluid intake (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board share this report with Doctor 1 and encourage him to reflect on its findings.

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

Overview

The complainant, Ms C (acting on behalf of an Action Group (the Group)) was concerned that Council planning officers had decided there was no requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)  in connection with a planning application.  She also felt that there were delays in responding to the Group's complaints and concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not correctly identify a planning application as a Schedule 2 development or deal with it appropriately (not upheld); and
• (b)  there were delays in responding to the Group's complaints and concerns (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  ensure that, where appropriate, planning officers include sufficient detail in their reports on planning applications to demonstrate they have fully considered the EIA Regulations; and
• (ii)  emphasise to staff the importance of keeping complainants informed of the progress of any formal complaint and of the stage of the complaints process at which their complaint has been considered.

Overview

A Citizens' Advice Bureau Officer (the complainant for the purposes of our complaint, to be known here as Ms C) raised a number of concerns about The Highland Council (the Council)'s handling of her clients (Mr and Mrs D's) Council Tax account and their subsequent formal complaint to the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to notify Mr and Mrs D of outstanding Council Tax in a timely manner (not upheld);
• (b)  contradictory information was provided by the Council regarding Mr and Mrs D's Council Tax account (not upheld);
• (c)  inadequate checks were undertaken by the Council prior to taking formal action (not upheld);
• (d)  an inadequate explanation was provided by Council staff for the error which occurred in relation to the handling of Mr and Mrs D's Council Tax account (not upheld); and
• (e)  the investigation carried out by the Council into Mr and Mrs D's complaint was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment which he and his wife (Mrs C) received from their dentist (Dentist 1).  He also complained that Mrs C had been unfairly removed from Dentist 1's dental list and that she was not advised of the reasons for the decision.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr C's waiting time for each appointment with Dentist 1 was unreasonable (no findings);
• (b)  Dentist 1's examination of Mr C's teeth was inadequate (not upheld);
• (c)  Dentist 1 incorrectly advised Mr C that he had a restricted mouth opening (no findings);
• (d)  Dentist 1 should not have advised Mr and Mrs C that they had 'very serious' or 'serious' gum disease or to avoid drinking tea, coffee and red wine (no findings);
• (e)  Dentist 1 was not entitled to discuss with or offer advice to Mr C on his medical history or medication (not upheld);
• (f)  Dentist 1 unfairly removed Mrs C from his dental list (partially upheld);
• (g)  Dentist 1 did not advise Mrs C of the reasons for his decision (not upheld); and
• (h)  Dentist 1 failed to address all points of complaint raised by Mr C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Dentist 1:

• (i)  apologises to Mrs C for failing to follow the correct notification process for de-registration and takes steps to ensure that he and his staff become conversant with the legal provisions in this area; and
• (ii)  apologises to Mr C for failing to address the points of complaint raised by Mr C and takes steps to ensure that, in future, he responds appropriately to all points of complaint made by patients in letters of complaint.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that a senior official (the Senior Official) with Shetland Islands Council (the Council) failed to declare an interest when dealing with certain organisations.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Senior Official failed to declare an interest when dealing with organisations in which his brother was involved (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council emphasise to staff the importance of public perception in relation to their actions.

Overview

A solicitor, Mr C, complained that the Company he represents was misled by a local enterprise company giving reassurances that funding would be made available.  The application was subsequently refused and Mr C claimed that this led to financial losses for the Company.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Inverness and Nairn Enterprise (INE) misled the Company by giving a reasonable expectation that the application for grant assistance would be successful and that the Company unjustly incurred costs as a result of the subsequent rejection of the application (upheld);
• (b)  INE gave assurances that the beginning of preparatory work on site would not prejudice the likely success of the application.  The beginning of such work was later used as a reason for rejecting the complaint (upheld);
• (c)  INE did not alert the Company at the beginning of the application process to issues of displacement and additionality which would later form the basis for the rejection of the application (upheld); and
• (d)  there were inconsistencies in the reasons offered to the Company for the rejection of the application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board of HIE:

• (i)  apologise to the Company;
• (ii)  review the way applications for financial assistance are supported to ensure clarity of expectations;
• (iii)  address the need for clear, documented advice to applicants throughout that process; and
• (iv)  ensure that all eligibility criteria are clearly addressed at the beginning and throughout the application process.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that South Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s Social Work Department were wrongly representing his wife (Mrs C), who lived in a care home, as being mentally capable of determining her own life.  He considered that decisions about her life should, instead, be made through consultation with himself or his wife's solicitor.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council wrongly represented Mrs C's mental capacity (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that his 86-year old late uncle (Mr A)'s chances of survival were compromised by the GP's late referral to hospital and by Uist & Barra Hospital (the Hospital)'s care and treatment.  His uncle died during his time in the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated concern:

• (a)      the timing of the hospital referral (no finding); and
• (b)      the Hospital's care and treatment (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment her late father (Mr A) received at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley (the Hospital) from 2 July 2005 to 11 July 2005.  This included whether it was appropriate for staff to prescribe oral rather than intravenous antibiotics and whether account was taken of Mr A's pre-existing medical condition prior to the hospital admission.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mr A was provided with inadequate treatment and staff failed to take into account his pre-existing medical condition (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board consider the development of Board-wide bereavement guidance and inform her of the outcome of the audit of nursing records.

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