South of Scotland

Overview

Three complainants (Mr A, Mr B and Mr C) raised a number of issues regarding South Ayrshire Council (the Council)'s handling of a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast and associated equipment in a street near their homes.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) provided the Planning Committee (the Committee) and objectors with inaccurate information on a planning application for the erection of a telecommunications mast and associated equipment in a street near the complainants' homes (partially upheld); and
• (b) failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the telecommunications mast and associated equipment erected by the applicants complied with planning consent (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to the complainants for providing the Committee with inaccurate information on the planning application;
• (ii) ensure that, in future, more thorough checks are made on documentation for planning applications to ensure that those documents which are current and those which are superseded are clearly identified; and
• (iii) ensure that, in future, planning reports to Committee contain information on the history of the application, comparing the original scheme with the final proposal and outlining any significant changes which have been made.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised his concerns that the consultation process used by the Highland Council (the Council) when deciding to close a primary school in the Council’s area (Primary School 1) was inappropriate.  Mr C considered this led to a flawed decision to close the school.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council did not follow the correct procedures when carrying out the consultation into the options for the future of Primary School 1 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that East Lothian Council (the Council) Building Control Department failed to provide her with an appropriate service during the construction of her home.  In particular, she considers that because of poor administration, the Council failed to respond to her enquiries and mislaid documentation sent to them causing delay and additional expense.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to respond to Ms C's telephone and written enquiries concerning roof trusses during January and February 2005 (upheld);
• (b) failed to make any specific comment on the fact that Ms C had to re-engage her builder to complete a further Completion Certificate application and Electrical Certificate when these had already been received by the Council and were on file (upheld);
• (c) did not properly consider Ms C's claim for compensation (upheld); and
• (d) failed to follow their formal complaints procedure when dealing with Ms C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that it has suitable procedures in place to prevent documentation being overlooked in future;
• (ii) remind all relevant staff of the importance of responding to requests for compensation; and
• (iii) review its compliance with its complaints procedures to ensure that complainants are kept informed if timescales cannot be met.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that her daughter (Miss A) was not provided with access to educational services by Comhairle nan Eilan Siar (the Council) in that they failed to protect her from bullying at the school she attended (School 1) and unreasonably refused a transport request to allow her to attend a new school (School 2).  Ms C was also concerned that her complaints had not been adequately dealt with, in that there were unacceptable delays in the complaints procedure and that the Council failed to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to provide Miss A with educational services by failing to take appropriate steps to protect her from bullying at School 1 (not upheld);
• (b) failed to provide Miss A with educational services by unreasonably refusing a transport request to allow her to attend School 2 (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to deal adequately with Ms C's complaints by constantly delaying the complaints procedure and failing to give adequate reasons for their decisions (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) implement a system to ensure that the receipt of all letters to the Council are logged on the day they are delivered;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the failure to acknowledge her letter of 10 October2006 within three working days;
• (iii) review their complaints procedure to ensure that complainants are provided with a formal explanation if the response to a complaint will take longer than the stated timescales;
• (iv) devise and implement a written procedure for the appeals panel element of the Complaints and Appeals procedure; and
• (v) review their communication policies and procedures to ensure that it is clear to recipients what documents should be enclosed with letters from the Council.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) considered that the Council had failed either to find a permanent campsite for gypsy/travellers in the Moray area or deal effectively with the environmental problems arising from an unauthorised campsite which is sited in proximity to his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to provide an alternative (permanent) campsite for gypsy/travellers (not upheld); and
• (b) failure to deal effectively with the environmental problems arising from an unauthorised campsite (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) notify her when permanent facilities have been set up;
• (ii) consider taking appropriate enforcement action, where it is established that there is unacceptable behaviour on the unauthorised campsite contrary to their code of acceptable behaviour; and
• (iii) review their protocol to ensure that the rights of the settled community are given equal consideration to those of the gypsy/travellers.

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

Overview

Mr C’s complaint resulted from the concern he raised that his elderly mother-in-law (Mrs A) had been incorrectly charged for Homecare Services for the preparation of meals by Scottish Borders Council (the Council).  Mr C’s concern was acknowledged by the Council and there was an exchange of correspondence and emails between them, however, Mr C alleged that the Council inadequately dealt with his concern and, thereafter, his complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council demonstrated poor complaints handling by not adequately responding to the complaint Mr C made, regarding their Homecare Charges (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that all emails (and all manner of contact) are responded to, and responded to in good time, and that the Council adhere to their complaints handling procedure in this regard;
• (ii) seek to improve communication between Council departments when handling complaints and enquiries, such as in this case that involved the Social Work Department and Legal Services Department. This should include considering at what point the Customer Care Manager should be involved to co-ordinate and lead procedures. In addition, when a complaint or enquiry (formal or informal) is passed to another Council department for further action, the reason for this is explained to the complainant; and
• (iii) offer an apology to Mr C for the inadequate manner his complaint was dealt with.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the level of nursing care which her late husband (Mr C) received at Borders General Hospital (the Hospital) during two admissions in 2006 and 2007.

Specific complaint and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that, during two admissions to the Hospital in 2006 and 2007, staff failed to ensure that Mr C received an adequate level of nursing care (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Borders NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) conduct an audit of the cleaning regime which is in use throughout the Hospital and advise her of the outcome;
• (ii) provide evidence of the systems in place to monitor and audit the nursing notes (which would include patient assessment and the care plan);
• (iii) remind staff of the importance to record incidents of injury to patients in the nursing records, in addition to completing incident reports;
• (iv) provide evidence that there are measures in place to monitor compliance with the Administration of Medicines Policy; and
• (v) share this report with the Senior Charge Nurse on the ward and consider, in light of the issues which have been raised, whether additional education and development is required.

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 she received for a fractured arm at her community hospital (Hospital 1), following a fall on 24 October 2006.  Mrs C attended Hospital 1 from 24 October 2006 to 12 December 2006 but remained unhappy with the treatment she received and eventually referred herself to a major hospital (Hospital 2) for treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) further to Mrs C’s attendance at Hospital 1, from 25 October 2006, staff failed to arrange a follow-up x-ray (upheld); and
• (a) the management of Mrs C’s injury was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Grampian NHS Board (the Board):

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for the failure to carry out a repeat x-ray; and
• (ii) develop a protocol for the management of patients who attend community hospitals with fractures, as suggested by the professional medical adviser.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment provided to his wife (Mrs C) in the weeks leading up to her death in June 2006.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Highland NHS Board (the Board) failed to:

• (a) obtain properly informed consent for an operation (upheld);
• (a) manage a 'Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' order properly (upheld); and
• (b) provide reasonable care and treatment to Mrs C from 2004 onwards (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) undertake an audit of operative consent and reflect if further action is needed in light of the results of the audit; and
• (ii) undertake an audit of the use of 'Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' orders and reflect if further action is needed in light of the results of the audit.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C*), who was a member of the Management Committee of Shire Housing Association Limited (the Association), raised a number of concerns relating to the alleged anti-social behaviour of her neighbours and the Association's subsequent administration of her request to be re-housed.  She said that, as a result of her complaint, she was asked to resign from the Association's Management Committee.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Association:

• (a) did not take appropriate action regarding Mrs C's complaints (not upheld);
• (a) took an unnecessarily long time to offer alternative accommodation to MrsC (not upheld);
• (b) made an offer of accommodation to Mrs C which was unsuitable in terms of the Association's letter of 29 August 2005 (not upheld); and
• (c) put Mrs C under pressure to resign from the Management Committee because she had made a complaint about the Association as a resident (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association make a full formal written apology to Mrs C for requesting that she should consider resigning from the Management Committee, without giving her the opportunity to respond to the allegations made about her.

The Association have accepted the recommendation and will act on them accordingly.

* The complaint was made jointly by Mr and Mrs C, however, for ease of reporting the complainant is referred to as Mrs C throughout the report.