West of Scotland

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised three specific complaints against East Renfrewshire Council (the Council) that they had not adequately handled their objections to, and thereafter approved the erection of, a two storey extension to the rear of a neighbouring bungalow.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to take account of Mr and Mrs C's objections to a neighbouring extension (not upheld);
• (b) did not allow Mr and Mrs C to attend meetings about the proposed extension (not upheld); and
• (c) made a decision based on overshadowing calculations which were flawed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

Mr C raised a number of concerns regarding the arrangements put in place for the management of his care and behaviour in a hospital where he was receiving treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

Mr C complained that those arrangements were inadequate, unfair and deprived him of his right to dignity and privacy. Mr C also had concerns regarding the Board's relationship with the media, which he claimed caused him and his family unnecessary distress.  I did not uphold those complaints, but I did uphold the complaint that the Board's application of their complaints procedure unfairly prevented Mr C from receiving responses to his complaints.

Redress and recommendations

I made a number of recommendations to the Board in connection with Mr C’s complaints.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) complained about the standard of treatment she received from a dental practitioner which, she felt, had led to further problems with her dental health.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a root was perforated during treatment, but this was not identified (not upheld); and
• (b) the fitting of a crown was done poorly, leading to periodontal damage (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

The dentist who was involved in this complaint was working in a practice in Lothian NHS Board area at the time of this complaint and thereafter moved to the area covered by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) complained about the response of her GP Practice to an infected rash on her legs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the treatment for a rash on Ms C's legs was inadequate and has led to tissue damage and difficulty in walking (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) said that East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) did not administer her council tax account correctly.  When she made various enquiries about the status of her account and ultimately complained to them, they did not resolve the issue to her satisfaction and failed to advise her of their complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the communication and advice from the Council was poor (upheld);
• (b) record-keeping by the Council in relation to council tax was inadequate (upheld); and
• (c) the Council's complaints handling was poor (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) reminds their staff to ensure the accuracy of account details before taking action on council tax accounts;
• (ii) apologises to Miss C for their errors and the confusion caused; and
• (iii) makes a payment to Miss C equal to the disputed sum of £242.00.

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

Overview

Mrs C has complained that the admission assessment which took place in her home on 2 November 2004 was inappropriate, after which she was admitted to Rosslynlee Hospital (the Hospital) under section 24 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (the legislation at the time).  This investigation, therefore, focuses on the detailed assessment that is recorded as having taken place and the subsequent admission into hospital.  Mrs C was transferred to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (RIE) after two days in the Hospital, as she was physically unwell and the assessment of symptoms and care she required could not be provided within the Hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C was not properly assessed prior to admission to the Hospital in November2004 (not upheld); and
• (b) Mrs C was inappropriately admitted to the Hospital in November2004 (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was unhappy with the treatment her mother (Mrs A) had received at St John's Hospital (the Hospital) on 16 July 2005, that certain questions she had raised with Lothian NHS Board (the Board) during the complaints process had not been answered, that the staff at the Hospital failed to act in a professional manner and that, though the Board had admitted that the date of Mrs A's death was recorded incorrectly, they had not arranged for the death certificate to be corrected.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs A's care and treatment at the Hospital on 16 July 2005 was inadequate (not upheld);
• (b) staff at the Hospital did not act in a professional manner towards Mrs A or her family (not upheld); and
• (c) the response from the Board to Mrs C's complaints contained inaccuracies and did not address all the issues she raised (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) complained to the Ombudsman about the care and treatment received by her husband (Mr C) from Lothian NHS Board (the Board)'s Unscheduled Care Service.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) a GP (GP 2) should have arranged Mr C's admission to hospital (upheld);
• (b) a GP (GP 3) was unhelpful and provided Mrs C with inadequate information (upheld); and
• (c) there was undue delay by the Board in dealing with Mrs C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) enables GP2 to reflect on the importance of assessing hydration status in future case management;
• (ii) ensures that GP3 gives full details of any arrangements he has made or intends to make, on behalf of a patient, to the patient or the person acting for the patient;
• (iii) consider whether there would be benefit in reminding all GPs working for the Unscheduled Care Service that clear comprehensive communication with callers is essential; and
• (iv) ensures that complainants are kept up-to-date with progress and expected timescales in accordance with the NHS complaints procedure.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding water penetration into her Council rented property.  Mrs C complained that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) did not carry out their duties when implementing repairs to her bathroom ceiling, which was damaged due to water ingress from a leak in the roof of the building.  Mrs C also claimed that given the severity of damage to her bathroom, she and her family should have been provided with temporary accommodation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council's actions in carrying out relevant repairs were inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council failed to provide temporary accommodation (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about the fact that she was unfairly deregistered from a dental practice (the Practice) when she arrived late for an appointment.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C was unfairly deregistered from the Practice when she arrived late for an appointment (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for deregistering her without warning;
• (ii) review the operation of their no-tolerance policy in light of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Scotland Regulations 1996; and
• (iii) make any policies clear in the information which they give to new patients.

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