South of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment that her late father (Mr A) had received from his GP Practice (the Practice) before his death.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Practice delayed in examining Mr A after his family contacted them stating that he had chest pain on 28 June 2007 (upheld); and
• (b) the action taken to 'flag' Mr A's notes that he had special requirements was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for the delays in examining Mr A on 28 June 2007;
• (ii) organise a review of their triage systems and ensure that the revised procedures are communicated effectively to staff;
• (iii) apologise to Mrs C for the failure to effectively flag Mr A's notes; and
• (iv) consider how they can effectively flag the electronic records of a patient with significant health problems.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding Communities Scotland (the Grant Provider)'s handling of her application for a Rural Home Ownership Grant (RHOG). Mrs C complained that the Grant Provider and their local agents, failed to follow the correct procedures when processing her application and that communication from the two agencies was poor.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Grant Provider failed to follow their own guidelines when considering Mrs C's RHOG application (upheld); and
(b) communication from the Grant Provider was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Government Housing and Regeneration Directorate:
(i) ensure that their agents fully understand their responsibilities with regard to RHOG applications, in particular by ensuring that all applications meet the required criteria and are fully completed prior to submission;
(ii) produce clear guidelines for their agents on presenting a case for consideration of applications with special circumstances;
(iii) require all RHOG applicants to have read and agreed their complete application before signing;
(iv) review Mrs C's case to identify any areas where communication between themselves and the Agent could have been improved; and
(v) formally apologise to Mrs C for the confusion and delay surrounding her RHOG application.

The Scottish Government Housing and Regeneration Directorate have accepted the recommendations and will act upon them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment of her mother (Mrs A). Mrs A was resident in a care home and two Doctors (Doctor 1 and Doctor 2) from Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board) had visited her in the final hours of her life.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that the Board's care and treatment of Mrs A in the final hours of her life was not reasonable (partially upheld to the extent that some aspects of Mrs A's care and treatment were not reasonable).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:
(i) encourage Doctor 1 to reflect on the case at their next appraisal, with particular reference to: assessment of unfamiliar patients as part of the Ayrshire Doctors On Call team; the factors to be considered in reaching a decision on the admission to hospital of frail elderly patients; the discussion and recording of admission criteria with carers and relatives; and the dosage of antibiotics in relation to Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network guidance; and
(ii) encourage Doctor 2 to reflect on the case at their next appraisal, with particular reference to: the discussion and recording of terminal diagnoses with carers and relatives; andthe use of symptomatic measures in terminal care.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) and his sister raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment provided to their sister (Ms A) by Mental Health Services within Ailsa Hospital (Hospital 1), Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board (the Board) in February 2006. Ms A sustained a major spinal injury as a result of a fall from a window after her discharge from Ayr Hospital (Hospital 2) on 14 February 2006. Ms A never recovered, her condition deteriorated and she died in January 2007. Following the submission of Mr C's complaint to the Ombudsman's office the Board undertook a further review of Mr C's concerns and at a meeting with Mr C a number of issues were explained and apologies given for the failings in communication with Ms A's family which had been identified. Mr C was satisfied with much of this but remain concerned about the treatment provided to his sister. These are the issues investigated in this report.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) Ms A's treatment at Hospital 1 during January and February 2006 was ineffective and she was discharged inappropriately (not upheld); and
(b) Ms A was treated and discharged inappropriately from Hospital 2 following her attendances at the Accident and Emergency Department on 10 and 13 February 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
Because of the action already taken by the Board to address failures in communication since the complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman's office, the Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained on behalf of his stepmother (Mrs A) about the assessment made of her condition on 15 October 2007, which led to Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board's (the Board) decision that she was not entitled to NHS Continuing Care, despite having qualified for a previous period in England. Mr C also complained that the benefits of moving to be closer to him as her only surviving relative were discounted by the Board and he also complained about how the Board handled the matter. Sadly, Mrs A died on 26 January 2008.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the assessment on 15 October 2007 was inadequate (not upheld);
• (b) the Board discounted the benefit of Mrs A's move to be closer to her family (not upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to explain properly the decision not to award continuing care funding (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board;

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to explain the decision properly;
• (ii) undertake a retrospective assessment of Mrs A's eligibility for NHS Continuing Care from the point of her transfer to Scotland;
• (iii) consider whether they now have a preferred or standardised format for decisions relating to and documentation of assessments for NHS Continuing Care;
• (iv) consider what procedures they have in place to assess cross border transfers where there is no request or need for NHS Continuing Care;
• (v) consider what procedures they now have in place to ensure that all care home residents are routinely assessed at the point of entry and thereafter, with regard to their eligibility for NHS Continuing Care;
• (vi) consider under what circumstances they will consider retrospective requests for NHS Continuing Care; and
• (vii) review the instructions they give to their staff on the handling of assessments relating to extraordinary issues such as cross border patient movement.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) lives in a conservation area in an East Lothian town. His complaint concerned what he considered to be an inadequate response by East Lothian Council (the Council) to his complaints about nuisance from noise from an adjacent children's day care nursery.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have failed to carry out their duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to detect, investigate and take appropriate action in respect of a noise nuisance emanating from an adjacent children's nursery (partially upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council's Environment Department agree with Mr C and his wife an appropriate regime of noise monitoring from the curtilage of their home over the summer months of 2009 to establish whether or not the noise levels they are experiencing constitute a statutory noise nuisance and, if so, seek instructions from the Council as to further action.

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

Overview

Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D (the Complainants) are two sets of neighbours whose properties sit either side of a residential property which was granted planning permission to be extended. The Complainants are aggrieved with the Council's handling of the planning proposals for the original development and the subsequent amendments to the consent. Mr and Mrs D complained also of delay and failure by the Council to reply to their correspondence on the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council:

• (a) mishandled the planning proposals relating to the extension of a residential property; (upheld) and
• (b) failed to deal properly with Mr and Mrs D's representations about these proposals (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures to ensure that these contain clear advice on reporting to the Planning Committee where premature works have been carried out, whether or not these form part of the representations to a development proposal;
• (ii) formally apologise to Mr and Mrs C and Mr and Mrs D for the shortcomings identified in this report;
• (iii) make a payment of £500 to Mr and Mrs C and also to Mr and Mrs D towards their expenses; and
• (iv) examine and consider improvements in how they handle correspondence in any ongoing service review.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that North Ayrshire Council (the Council) Trading Standards officers had provided incorrect information to two newspapers about their involvement in a dispute he had with one of his customers. He considered that any discussion on the matter between Council officials and the press also amounted to a breach of his confidentiality. He further complained that Council officials had repeatedly and deliberately misled him and provided incorrect and incomplete answers to his questions and complaints to cover-up certain actions of the Trading Standards officer who had discussed the complaint about his building firm with the press.

Specific complaints and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that;

• (a) Council officials did not respond adequately to Mr C's representation to them about alleged breaches of confidentiality by one of their officers (upheld); and
• (b) Council staff lied to Mr C about staff contacts with journalists. Mr C considers that there has been an abuse of power (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman had already made informal recommendations to the Council which were accepted and acted on by them. Consequently, the Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the actions of Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) in preparing reports subsequent to an incident reported to the police by his then wife, and how they addressed his complaints about those actions.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

(a) did not deal appropriately with their enquiries involving Mr C (partially upheld to the extent that Mr C was not given an earlier opportunity to assess the factual accuracy of the Social Background Report); and

(b) did not deal appropriately with Mr C's complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which his grandmother (Mrs A) was assessed by Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board) for NHS funded continuing care. Mr C also raised concerns that the Scottish Government's policy on NHS funded continuing care was unclear and that there was no way for somebody living in the community to be assessed as the policy only provided for assessment upon discharge from hospital.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Scottish Government Health Directorate failed to take timely steps to update the guidance on NHS funded continuing care despite being aware of problems associated with it (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.