West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that her mother (Mrs A) received inadequate care and treatment after being admitted to Royal Victoria Hospital (the Hospital) between 17 July 2006 and 20 October 2006.  She also raised concerns about the cleanliness of the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Lothian NHS Board (the Board) failed to appropriately monitor and audit the cleanliness of the Hospital (partially upheld to the extent that there were failures in cleaning and monitoring);
• (b) nursing staff failed to take action when they were advised of concerns by Mrs A's family and were often unavailable, in several instances because they were at management meetings (no finding);
• (c) a nurse acted inappropriately by trying to remove Mrs A's ring without a local anaesthetic (upheld); and
• (d) as a result of the poor care Mrs A received, her health and general condition deteriorated during her stay at the Hospital (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) bring the findings of this report to the attention of all staff involved in cleaning, supervising and monitoring cleaning, to remind them of the importance of cleaning all required areas, recording cleaning appropriately and carefully checking cleaning and monitoring documentation so that the omissions highlighted in this report are not repeated in future;
• (ii) ensure that the induction of new staff includes appropriate and adequate training on the completion of cleaning records;
• (iii) apologise to Mrs A and her family for attempting to remove her ring without local anaesthetic and for the distress this caused; and
• (iv) put measures in place to ensure that, where the condition of a finger is clearly such that removal of a ring will be painful, removal should be carried out with the use of a local anaesthetic.

The Board have accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations and will act on the accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns in respect of his neighbour's application to East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) to construct an extension at the gable of his house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to have regard to their Local Plan guidance on privacy and intervisibility of windows in granting planning consent to the application (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take enforcement action to ensure that an upstairs en-suite bathroom window was provided with obscure glazing (partially upheld); and
• (c) delayed unduly in responding to Mr C's concerns (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for their shortcomings; and
• (ii) explore with Mr C and his neighbour the introduction of screening to preserve Mr C's privacy from overlooking from his neighbour's downstairs windows.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  They have indicated with regard to (ii) that if that outcome can be achieved, the Council's Planning Service would, in the interests of customer relations, bear such reasonable costs as might arise.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the treatment he received at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (the Hospital) for an injury to his knee.  Mr C also claimed that the consultant treating him (Consultant 1) at the Hospital failed to fully consider all the potential causes for Mr C's problems with his knee.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Consultant 1's assessment of Mr C's symptoms was inadequate and did not go into sufficient detail (not upheld); and
• (b) Consultant 1's diagnosis was not reasonable and he failed to consider the possibility that Mr C was suffering from Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, complained on behalf of her sister (Ms A) that Inverclyde Council (the Council)'s Social Work Department had failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised about the behaviour of Ms A's former partner towards their children.  Ms C pursued this through the Council's complaint procedure and made written and oral submissions to a Complaints Review Committee (the CRC).  The CRC did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the CRC's consideration of this matter was inadequate and did not take into account all relevant evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure that guidance to CRC members and relevant staff clearly indicates the importance of careful drafting in the report, to ensure that the decision is fully recorded;
• (ii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the parties; and
• (iii) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this report.

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

Overview

Two complaints were submitted on behalf of four households whose properties shared a rear boundary with a site (the Site) which was developed for housing.  The complainants raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) of planning applications for the Site submitted by a developer (the Developer) and what they saw as unauthorised development.

Specific complaints and conclusions

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

• (a) the Developer complied properly with the statutory neighbour notification procedure (not upheld);
• (b) the planning applications included full details of the proposed ground levels and associated engineering works (not upheld);
• (c) proper account was taken of possible encroachment, loss of privacy and light, removal of existing trees and the impact of noise on amenity (not upheld): and
• (d) road safety implications were considered (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council take action to secure the early installation of bollards and fencing which they earlier identified as desirable.

The Council have accepted the recommendation and informed the Ombudsman that they would contact the Developer to complete the early installation of the bollards and fencing mentioned in paragraph 25 of the report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent made by his neighbour (Mr N) for alteration to and extension of his property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to ensure that Mr N complied with the requisite notification of his proposals (partially upheld);
• (b) failed to take action on a neighbour notification received by Mr C on 16March2006 which was clearly invalid (partially upheld);
• (c) failed to respond to Mr C's request of 25 April 2006 for information on when the Application would be considered and if he could address the Development Quality Sub-Committee (upheld); and
• (d) compiled a report on the Application without a site visit by a planning officer and which contained errors of fact and incorrect interpretation of their own policies (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr C for their identified failings.

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

Overview

The complainant, referred to as Mr C, raised a number of concerns regarding planning and enforcement issues with The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).  He remained dissatisfied with the Council's final response to his complaints and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Specific complain and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C's neighbour received planning permission to erect a sun room which breached planning guidelines (not upheld);
• (b) the Council advised Mr C that Permitted Development Rights (PDR) had been withdrawn, when in fact this was not the case (not upheld); and
• (c) the Council advised Mr C that the fence at the rear of his property required planning permission, only to advise him later that the fence did not require planning permission (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make a full formal written apology to Mr C for providing conflicting and confusing information in relation to the fence at the rear of his property; and
• (ii) consider ways of ensuring that relevant staff seek advice when complicated and sensitive situations arise.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s introduction of resident parking bays on the street Mr C resides (the Street), which he said had been done without road safety assessments being carried out.  Mr C was also concerned that the decision to introduce the new parking bays did not take account of the fact that planning permission had been granted for a development (the Development) that led to 100 additional cars using the Street.  Mr C complained that the resulting situation was dangerous in terms of road safety.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) changes to parking on the Street were introduced without any road safety assessments being carried out by the Council (not upheld); and
• (b) the decision to make changes to parking did not take account of the fact that the Council had granted planning permission for the Development, which led to 100 additional cars using the Street (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her mother (Miss A) had not been appropriately treated by her GP practice (the Practice) and also that her own complaint to the Practice had not been properly responded to.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Practice:

• (a) did not give Miss A appropriate care between January and June 2006 (not upheld); and
• (b) did not respond appropriately to Mrs C's complaint of 4 July 2006 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was a solicitor representing a company which was defending a court action.  The pursuers in this case had applied for Legal Aid and Mr C complained that delays in reviewing the award of Legal Aid were prejudicial to his clients.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there were unreasonable delays by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) in reviewing Mr C's opponents' Legal Aid status and these delays 'disadvantaged' his clients (upheld only to the extent that Mr C's clients experienced a period of uncertainty over the outcome of the consideration of representations); and
• (b) these delays were in breach of the service standards set by SLAB (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SLAB:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for failing to update him adequately about the progress of their considerations; and
• (ii) implement measures to ensure that information received regarding the ongoing grant of Legal Aid is processed efficiently and that communications with parties involved in this process are clear and timely.

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