West of Scotland

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns regarding dental treatment received by their daughter (Miss A) at a General Dental Practice (the Practice).  They consider this treatment to have caused one of Miss A's teeth to become non-vital (see Annex 2) and they believe that they should have been warned of this risk in advance.  They were also dissatisfied with the alignment of Miss A's teeth following the treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) after dental correction with braces, Miss A had a non-vital front upper tooth which may require expensive treatment in the future (not upheld);
• (b) the risk of the tooth becoming non-vital should have been pointed out to Mr and Mrs C prior to treatment commencing (not upheld); and
• (c) following treatment, the centre lines of the top and bottom teeth did not match (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the handling by West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) of an application (the Application) for planning consent for housing on a nearby site, the proposed access to which is immediately to the side of Mr C's home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) mishandled Mr C's representations on the Application (upheld);
• (b) prepared a report on the Application prior to the expiry of the period for representations (upheld);
• (c) failed to meet Mr C's requests for information on their report and the minutes relating to the consideration of the Application (upheld);
• (d) officers took an over-active interest in promoting the applicant's interests particularly regarding access (not upheld); and
• (e) planning officers inappropriately issued the outline consent without further reference to the Council's Planning Committee (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review their procedures:

• (i) in order to ensure that in similar future circumstances objectors have confidence that their timely representations are fully considered and reported on; and
• (ii) on issuing reports for consideration where the period for representations has not expired.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of complaints that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had not acted properly in relation to works that had been undertaken at his property and that these actions had resulted in unnecessary financial loss, taken up a disproportionate amount of his time and energy and caused him considerable stress.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to ensure that the expense was reasonably incurred (not upheld);
• (b) failed to ensure that the extent of the work carried out was reasonable and not excessive (not upheld);
• (c) failed to correspond within a reasonable period with regard to various correspondence relating to the matter (not upheld);
• (d) failed to correspond for a period of more than one year with regard to the matter (not upheld);
• (e) failed to confirm the outcome of the 'appeals' of the cases (not upheld);
• (f) failed to take positive action to try to produce a solution (not upheld);
• (g) failed to provide an effective Customer Complaint process (upheld);
• (h) failed to issue Statutory Notices and corresponding invoices correctly (not upheld);
• (i) failed to issue Statutory Notices timeously (not upheld);
• (j) failed to adequately warn Mr C and other owners and occupiers that scaffolding was due to be erected outside their properties (not upheld); and
• (k) used threatening and bullying language with regard to pursuing payment of the invoices sent in September 2005 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the confusion and omissions in their handling of his complaints; and
• (ii) make clear to complainants what the various stages in their complaints process are, which department they should expect to receive communication from, how to progress their complaints through the process, indicate clearly when the Council believe that the process has been completed and what they can do if they remain dissatisfied in each specific case.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that Midlothian Council (the Council) failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by him regarding the anti-social behaviour of neighbours and that the Council's policy in relation to anti-social behaviour was flawed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was delay by the Council in responding to correspondence from Mr C and his representatives (partially upheld);
• (b) there were flaws in the Council's anti-social behaviour policy/procedures (not upheld);
• (c) there was inaction or inappropriate action taken by the Council in response to complaints about anti-social behaviour (partially upheld); and
• (d) the Council handled Mr C's complaint poorly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide her with a copy of the current service standards for acknowledging and responding to all modes of contact and correspondence, both for complaints and for general enquiries;
• (ii) consider putting more information into the guidance for staff dealing with anti-social behaviour reports, and into the public domain, on the corroboration standards required before action may be taken against alleged perpetrators;
• (iii) update her on the monitoring and evaluation of the Council's Antisocial Behaviour Strategy (the Strategy) since October 2005;
• (iv) using the benefit of officers' experience since 2005  consider reviewing, possibly with the use of case studies, how they determine when complaints about anti-social behaviour from one or more sources in close proximity have progressed from intermittent and episodic to an ongoing and consistent anti-social behaviour situation;
• (v) provide her with the information and guidance now issued with the Neighbour Problems Diary sheets as this should indicate how and when they should be used, and in particular should explain how the Council will determine the sheets' validity as evidence. In addition, the Council should develop a fuller statement of what they regard as acceptable corroboration and what they regard as a credible independent witness. It might help to explain this to members of the public by using anonymised/fictionalised case studies on the anti-social behaviour section of the Council's website;
• (vi) provide her with information about the Council's mediation service, both in terms of guidance for officers on how and when it should be offered to the parties involved in an anti-social behaviour situation, as well as how information about the service is made available to the public; and
• (vii) update her on the review of the Strategy, on whether or not the Antisocial Behaviour Order guidance in the Housing Officer's Handbook has been clarified, and on how the Council is currently dealing with noise nuisance.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C), the parents of a teenage son (Child C) with special educational needs, raised a number of concerns about Child C's education while he attended three of the City of Edinburgh Council's (the Council) schools (School A, School B and School C) and about the way their complaints had been handled by the Council. In their initial submission they made 17 specific complaints. These were the subject of an earlier detailed report on which both Mr and Mrs C and the Council commented. In light of those comments, it was decided not to pursue further four specific heads of complaint and to group together others in this amended report.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed in their statutory duty to offer appropriate full-time education to Child C suitable for his needs (no finding);
• (b) failed to provide Mr and Mrs C as parents with adequate and sufficient information to make an informed choice of school for Child C and to ensure smooth transitional arrangements and liaison between schools (not upheld);
• (c) failed, following Child C's exclusion from School C in September 2002, to take timely and appropriate steps to deal with the exclusion and to support Child C and Mr and Mrs C (upheld);
• (d) failed to deal in an appropriate and timely manner with Mr and Mrs C's placing request for Child C to attend a residential school in England (partially upheld); and
• (e) dealt inappropriately with two complaints Mr and Mrs C submitted (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman considers that the report highlights the difficulties in providing for a child where special educational needs are compounded by behavioural difficulties and the frustrations experienced by parents striving to achieve the best possible provision of education services to meet their child's needs. While the Council's Education Department generally had proper regard to their obligations, the lack of local options available undoubtedly had an important bearing on their responsiveness. The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review the problems confronted by Mr and Mrs C in securing appropriate suitable education to meet Child C's needs;
• (ii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failures identified in the report; and
• (iii) review the implementation of the Council's complaints procedures particularly with regard to services for children and young people.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) visited the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (the Hospital)'s Accident and Emergency department suffering from chest and arm pain.  She was examined and sent home, being told that an existing stomach complaint was the most likely cause of her symptoms.  Two days later she suffered a myocardial infarction.  Ms C feels that the tests carried out by Lothian NHS Board (the Board) were insufficiently thorough and that her concerns regarding her family medical history of heart problems were not taken seriously.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Board failed to diagnose Ms C's condition (not upheld); and
• (b) staff in the Gastrointestinal Department of the Hospital were dismissive of Ms C's concerns during the diagnostic process (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) felt that his GP practice (the Practice), did not take his illness seriously, that they were slow to carry out and follow-up tests and that the diagnosis of his cancer was subsequently delayed.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the diagnosis of Mr C's condition was unnecessarily delayed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice review their procedures for recording and tracking the dispatch and receipt of blood tests.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the dental treatment which she had received from her General Dental Practitioner (the Dentist) during the period 2005 to December 2006.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Dentist:

• (a) failed to provide Ms C with an appropriate level of dental treatment (upheld); and
• (b) failed to keep accurate and contemporaneous records (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist:

• (i) apologises to Ms C for the failings which have been identified in this report;
• (ii) arranges postgraduate training on root canal treatment and periodontal monitoring and screening;
• (iii) carries out a clinical audit on the justification, quality and use of radiographs in providing adequate information to make effective treatment planning decisions; and
• (iv) conducts a review of his record-keeping and treatment planning procedures.

The Dentist has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him by Queen Margaret University College (the University College).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was not given specific details, before the Disciplinary Hearing (the Hearing), about the allegations made against him (upheld);
• (b) the evidence used against Mr C during the Hearing was not made available to him before the Hearing (not upheld);
• (c) the University College did not follow proper process in reaching its decision on the allegations against Mr C (upheld);
• (d) false evidence was given at the Hearing (no finding);
• (e) the University College inappropriately required Mr C to provide an Enhanced Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland (upheld);
• (f) Mr C did not have adequate time or resources to prepare for his examinations (not upheld); and
• (g) the University College took unnecessary amounts of time with the proceedings and correspondence relating to the hearings (partially upheld).

Other findings

Allegations against Mr C were upheld and he was expelled from the University College on the basis of flawed proceedings.

Redress and recommendations

The Director of Investigations recommends that the University College:

• (i) take steps to ensure that students accused of misconduct are formally notified of all allegations against them in accordance with their regulations and in sufficient detail to allow them to respond;
• (ii) review the standard of proof required by regulation 6.4 to decide whether it is appropriate for the purpose intended;
• (iii) remind relevant staff of the importance of following processes as laid down in their regulations;
• (iv) take steps to ensure that relevant members of staff are aware of, or have access to advice on, the circumstances in which it is appropriate to request the various types of Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland;
• (v) take steps to keep students adequately informed of the progress of any appeal; and
• (vi) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding Renfrewshire Council (the Council)'s decision to advertise a piece of land (the Land) for sale and to declare it surplus to the Council's requirements.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council acted in an unethical, unprofessional and underhand manner by placing a newspaper advertisement offering the Land for sale without any consultation or notification of interested parties (not upheld);
• (b) the Council placed undue pressure on members of the Council's Planning and Development Board (the Board) by stating that income from the sale of the Land would be used to augment the Council's future budget (not upheld);
• (c) the Land should not have been offered for sale without the Board's approval (not upheld); and
• (d) the Land is officially designated as woodland and has been adopted as an area of leisure and recreation by virtue of 35 years historic usage (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.