South of Scotland

Overview

The complaint from Mr C concerned East Lothian Council (the Council)'s alleged failure to take effective action against a neighbour who, it was said, did not comply with the terms of his tenancy by cleaning the common areas of the property where he lived.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take effective action against their tenant who did not comply with the terms of his tenancy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), a crofter, had submitted an application for the apportionment of common grazings which was received by the Crofters Commission (the Commission) on 30 September 2002.  Mr C complained about delays in dealing with the handling of the application.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was delay following the application for apportionment in 2002 (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Commission:

• (i)       apologise to Mr C that they did not pursue the planned scheme with full effectiveness; and
• (ii)      review their procedures for monitoring outstanding applications to ensure that they are progressed effectively.

Overview

Mrs C complained that Medical Practice 1 had failed to diagnose the cause of her back-pain accurately or in a timely manner.  She also complained that the Practice had not dealt with her complaint in accordance with the NHS Complaints Procedure and that GP 1 had made inaccurate entries in her medical record.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Medical Practice 1 failed to properly or promptly diagnose the cause of Mrs C's back-pain (not upheld);
• (b) Medical Practice 1 failed to handle her complaint in accordance with the NHS Complaints Procedure (upheld); and
• (c) GP 1 made an inaccurate entry in her medical record (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Medical Practice 1:

• (i) reflect on the Advisers' comments regarding the recording of examination findings and use such advice to inform good practice; and
• (ii) provide Mrs C with a written apology for their failure to properly follow the NHS Complaints Procedure.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the adequacy of the heating in his accommodation and the fact that East Lothian Council (the Council) had failed to meet their commitment to install gas central heating.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council made a commitment to install gas central heating and failed to do so (not upheld); and
• (b) the heating in Mr C’s accommodation is inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complaint concerns the withdrawal of an offer of housing, which the complainant (Ms C) alleged was both unfair and inflexible and not in compliance with the West Highland Housing Association Ltd (the Association)'s allocations policy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the offer was unfairly rescinded for reasons that did not comply with the Association's allocations policy (upheld); and
• (b) the Association discriminated against Ms C and treated her inflexibly (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Association's offer of housing provided a suitable remedy to the complaint.  Therefore, she has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) suffers from seronegative spondyloarthritis.  She also had sinus problems.  Her GP referred her to an Ear, Nose and Throat Consultant at Borders General Hospital.  Ms C's complaints arise from that consultation and subsequent events.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was confusion over the diagnosis:  the Consultant did not mention pharyngitis or her high neutrophil count in his initial letter to her GP (partially upheld);
• (b) there was a failure to explain an entry in the Consultant's hand written notes (upheld); and
• (c) there was confusion about an appointment for a second opinion (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Borders NHS Board:

• (i) apologises to Ms C for confusion over the diagnosis;
• (ii) reminds staff dealing with complaints that explanations should be provided when requested; and
• (iii) apologises to Ms C for failures in communication and takes steps to ensure that patients are clear about what appointments they can expect.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s late husband (Mr C) was given an angiogram test (which showed serious blockages in his heart arteries) in September 2004.  She felt that he might have lived if he had had an angiogram in October 2003 because she felt that an earlier view of his arteries would have enabled him to have further treatment, such as surgery, earlier, when he would have had a better chance of survival.  As it was, the later angiogram, and, therefore, the later diagnosis meant that by the time he had further treatment (surgery), he was at very high risk of not surviving it.  Indeed, he did die shortly after such surgery.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is the timing of an angiogram (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment plan she received from a physiotherapist and the handling of her complaint about this treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Physiotherapist 1 failed to provide suitable clinical treatment (upheld); and
• (b) the Board failed to deal with Ms C's complaint properly (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board incorporate the events of this complaint into future training / development sessions for physiotherapists to illustrate the importance of appropriate levels of record keeping.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his elderly mother (Mrs C), regarding a new refuse collection service that was introduced on the Isle of Arran by North Ayrshire Council.  Mr C was concerned that no public consultation occurred prior to the change in service and that his mother’s individual needs had not been considered.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council failed to:

• (a) consult prior to changing the refuse collection arrangements (not upheld);
• (b) act on Mrs C’s needs (upheld);
• (c) provide suitable refuse arrangements for Mrs C (upheld); and
• (d) act on advice from Mrs C’s general practitioner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) carry out a review of their new assisted pull-out policy and consider whether it is appropriate and sufficiently detailed;
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C for their failure to provide her with an appropriate service from the time at which the new arrangements were introduced until her hospitalisation in May 2005;
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to assess and consider his mother’s individual needs, despite his assertions that she could not use the new service;
• (iv) make a payment of £500 to Mrs C, in recognition of the fact that she was not provided with a service to which she should have been entitled from the time at which the new arrangements were introduced until her hospitalisation in May 2005 and for the time and trouble her son, Mr C, was put to in pursuing a complaint on her behalf; and
• (v) put a system in place to ensure that correspondence received from GPs and other medical professionals on behalf of customers is acknowledged and given due consideration.

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

Overview

On behalf of Mr and Mrs A (the aggrieved), a solicitor (Mr C) complained that their son (Mr B) died as a result of inadequate medical treatment.

Complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the GP1 failed to act in a timely manner (not upheld); and
• (b) MrB received inadequate medical treatment which led to his death (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.