South of Scotland

Overview
The complainant (the Solicitors) brought a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of their clients (Mr and Mrs C). Mr and Mrs C disputed Scottish Borders Council (the Council)'s decision to take into account the value of Mr C's mother (Mrs A)'s former home when calculating her liability for residential costs when she was admitted to a care home. The Solicitors also complained about the Council's complaints handling.

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 A's financial assessment was administratively flawed (upheld); and
• (b) the Council's complaints handling was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) obtain independent legal advice on Mrs A's case;
• (ii) convene another CRC hearing to reconsider Mrs A's case with reference to independent legal advice;
• (iii) provide evidence of the steps that they have taken to record, track and respond timeously to correspondence from members of the public and their representatives; and
• (iv) review their handling of the Solicitors' initial correspondence and formal complaint. In particular they should review their staff absence procedures and introduce measures to ensure that future staff absences do not unduly impact upon the delivery of service standards set out in the Council's complaints handling procedure.

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

Overview
The complainant, an advocate, (Ms C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of Mrs A about the financial assessment carried out by The Moray Council (the Council) to identify funds which could be taken into account towards the cost of residential care for her late mother, Mrs B.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs A was not told that she required to provide information about closed bank accounts and was then criticised for failing to do so (not upheld);
• (b) Mrs A was not told that she required to tell the Council everything her mother, Mrs B, spent her money on. If she had been told this then she would have done so before the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) (not upheld); and
• (c) Mrs A considers that had the Council provided sufficient information about what was required in the first place, the financial assessment process would have been much quicker and easier for her (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their process to ensure that a written record is made and retained of discussions with and advice given to an applicant where an application for financial assistance towards the costs for non residential and residential care is made. A copy of the record, together with a copy of the competed financial assessment application form, should also be provided to the applicant;
• (ii) review their process to ensure that a record is made and retained of all subsequent meetings and telephone calls between Council officers and an applicant during the financial assessment process;
• (iii) review their process to ensure that a record is made and retained of meetings and telephone calls between Council officers and members of the public where a complaint has been made about the Council; and
• (iv) review their process to ensure that a copy of the minutes of a CRC hearing is provided to a complainant and/or their representative within a reasonable time.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) made a complaint about the care and service provided to her husband (Mr C) by the Scottish Ambulance Service (the Service) in transporting Mr C to and from an Endoscopy out-patient appointment at Crosshouse Hospital in Kilmarnock. Mrs C also complained about the care and treatment provided to Mr C by Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board) while waiting for his out-patient appointment at the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the care and service provided to Mr C by the Service were not reasonable (upheld); and
• (b) the care and treatment provided to Mr C by the Board was not reasonable (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (i) remind all crews in the South West Division to contact their Area Service Office and await instructions if cancellations on their patient list would mean that other patients would be transported to hospital several hours before their appointment time; and
• (ii) remind all crews in the South West Division of the importance of passing on relevant information about a patient's needs following an outbound journey, such as whether a stretcher facility is required for a return journey, to their Area Service Office.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (iii) ensure that a record is made of the time a patient is admitted for their procedure and also of all advice given to patients on admission by nursing staff. This requirement should be incorporated into the new guidance;
• (iv) remind nursing staff of the importance of treating people as individuals, even in a very busy unit, as set out in the NMC Code; and
• (v) provide him with evidence of audit and evaluation of the first six months' operation of the new guidance and action plan for dealing with vulnerable adults arriving for Endoscopy appointments.

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

Overview
The complainant, a Citizens Advice advocacy worker (Mr C), raised a number of complaints on behalf of his client (Mrs A) about the financial assessment carried out by East Lothian Council (the Council) in respect of her mother (Mrs B) and the way the Council's Complaints Review Committee (CRC) dealt with the complaints.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there were shortcomings in the information provided to Mrs A by the Council at the time of the initial financial assessment of Mrs B (upheld);
• (b) the CRC failed fully to explain the reasoning behind their decision not to uphold the complaint (upheld);
• (c) the Council dealt with the matter in terms of a blanket policy and failed to consider the case on its own merits (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council acted unreasonably in not agreeing to convene a new CRC hearing to consider a salient piece of information (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) in consultation with the Chair and other members of the CRC, revisit their decision with a view to providing a full and adequate explanation based on the merits of Mr C's case; and
• (ii) in consultation with the Chair and other members of the CRC, assess the significance of the minute of the agreement to the merits of Mr C's case.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained about the failure of Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) to deal satisfactorily with nearby flooding problems and to repair the damage caused to the adopted road which serves his home.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have delayed unduly in taking action to reduce flood risk to Mr C's property and to effect repairs on the adopted road (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) consider whether there is a need, following the identification of projects in their capital plan, to provide periodic updates on their website of progress in implementation;
• (ii) provide a suitable expression of regret to Mr and Mrs C for the worry and concern which they have endured through the delay in implementing the project; and
• (iii) as a matter of urgency, ensure that the works identified under the project are carried out without further delay.

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

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) intended to install solar panels on the roof of their home, in a conservation area in a town in East Lothian, and arranged a meeting at the Planning Service offices of East Lothian Council (the Council). They complained about the quality of advice given to them and about the way their subsequent complaint was handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was a failure at a pre-application meeting to give appropriate advice (not upheld); and
• (b) there were failures in the handling of the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) assess the need to supplement internal guidance, with particular regard to the handling of requests for pre-application advice about the proposed installation of microgeneration equipment in conservation areas; and
• (ii) take steps to ensure that the outcome of pre-application meetings and advice are properly recorded.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) failed to investigate properly his complaint that he had been unfairly banned from a leisure facility, following an incident involving his child and another member and that member's child in 2008. Mr C stated that he had intervened because his child was being bullied. He was aggrieved at the decision taken to ban him and did not consider that his complaint about this incident was investigated properly. He was also aggrieved because it took account of a similar incident in 2007 when he had received a written warning from the Council. Mr C also complained that, following his allegations, the Council had failed to satisfy themselves properly that they had adequate child protection measures in place.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to investigate properly Mr C's complaint that he had been unfairly banned from a leisure facility (upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to satisfy themselves properly that they have adequate child protection measures in place (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) take appropriate action to ensure that the investigation into a complaint will be conducted properly and efficiently, with due regard to confidentiality;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr C for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint; and
• (iii) issue advice to their staff that non-adherence to good practice guidance, without reasonable explanation, is not an acceptable practice and may result in a critical finding by the Ombudsman.

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

Overview
The complainant, Ms C, raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment that her late father (Mr A) received at Crosshouse Hospital Kilmarnock (the Hospital), in the area of Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board). Ms C considered that poor standards of care had led to Mr A's premature death.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the care and treatment which Mr A received at the Hospital was inadequate and brought about his death prematurely (I upheld the complaint that the care and treatment were inadequate.  However, I did not find that poor standards of care had led to Mr A's premature death).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) provide the Ombudsman's office with a specimen copy of the new in-patient admissions booklet;
• (ii) provide the Ombudsman's office with a report on the findings of the audit of the Abbreviated Mental Test section of the patient medical admission form;
• (iii) remind staff of the importance of fully completing all significant documentation, paying particular attention to the omissions identified in this report;
• (iv) reflect on the comments of the specialist Advisers in paragraphs 15 and 22 of this report; and
• (v) issue an apology to Ms C and her family for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
The complainant (Ms C), who is an advice worker, raised a number of concerns on behalf of her client (Mrs A) about the treatment which she received for a swollen leg following her attendance at Borders General Hospital (the Hospital) on 11 December 2008 and 12 December 2008. Mrs A believed that she received an inadequate examination by a doctor (the Junior Doctor) on 11 December 2008 and that her care and treatment was not managed appropriately. Mrs A's leg continued to cause her problems and she returned to her general medical practice who referred her back to the Hospital on 18 December 2008 where an ultrasound scan revealed the presence of a deep vein thrombosis.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Junior Doctor failed to carry out an appropriate assessment and examination of Mrs A on 11 December 2008 (upheld); and
• (b) the management of Mrs A on 11 December 2008 and 12 December 2008 was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) share this report with the Junior Doctor and ensure he has a documented discussion with his current clinical supervisor on the issue, which is filed in his training logbook;
• (ii) review the adequacy of the clinical supervision of junior doctors in the General Medical Unit; and
• (iii) apologise to the family of Mrs A for the failings which have been identified in this report.

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

Overview
The complainant (Ms C), on behalf of her sister (Ms A), raised a number of concerns about the treatment which Ms A's late partner (Mr B) received from his general medical practice (the Practice) from 22 January 2009 to 26 January 2009. Mr B was admitted to hospital on 26 January 2009 with respiratory problems and multi-organ failure and died on 11 February 2009.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice did not do enough to investigate the symptoms displayed by Mr B and failed to diagnose severe sepsis which had developed as a result of community acquired pneumonia (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.