West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the way The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) handled an application for a skatepark in Inverleith Park.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council were unreasonable in the way they treated Ms C as an objector to a previous application for the same project (not upheld); and
• (b) there were failings in the way the Council handled Ms C's complaints about this matter (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Ms C for failing to give a full response to her complaint; and
• (ii) confirm that recent improvements to their complaints handling system address the issues highlighted in this report.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns about the podiatry treatment he received while he was recovering from a stroke.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) staff at Liberton Hospital did not take his speech and mobility problems into account before giving him treatment and pain relief was not discussed with him, as a consequence of which he suffered extreme discomfort (upheld);
• (b) pain relief was not offered at the local podiatry clinic, where he was referred for further treatment (not upheld); and
• (c) reception staff were unhelpful (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that for stroke patients like Mr C who are receiving podiatry treatment, the Board discuss, and record, the situation with regard to pain relief.  Furthermore, that they emphasise to reception staff the importance of good communication and, if information is required when attending for appointment (however that appointment is made), to be clear with patients about this.

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

Overview

Mr C, a housing advice officer, complained on behalf of Ms A.  Ms A had five children and had been in private rented accommodation.  She had been on the list for housing with East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for some years when she was assessed as unintentionally homeless in September 2004.  Thereafter, Ms A was in temporary Council-owned accommodation until September 2005, when she returned to private rented accommodation.  Ms A also returned to the general housing list at this time.  Mr C complained about a number of aspects of the Council's handling of Ms A's application for housing, including:  the standard of temporary accommodation; the Council's decision that Ms A's refusal of permanent accommodation was unreasonable; changes in the Council's allocation policy, which he said disadvantaged Ms A; and the refusal to grant Ms A additional social points once she had returned to the general list.  Mr C was also concerned about the way her complaints had been handled and about the way the Council had dealt with Ms A's application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council mishandled Ms A's application for housing, following her assessment as unintentionally homeless (partially upheld);
• (b) the Council did not respond adequately to Ms A's concerns about this (upheld); and
• (c) the Council mishandled Ms A's application for a DHP (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) provide her with a copy of the results of the review of the inventory documentation;
• (ii) ensure staff who are involved in the award of discretionary social points are aware of the comments in this report;
• (iii) ensure that all staff dealing with complaints know how to process these effectively;
• (iv) review guidance given to staff on recording contact with members of the public to ensure that all significant contact is recorded;
• (v) apologise to Mr C for their failure to respond to his letter of 1 July 2005; and
• (vi) apologise to Ms A for the failures in their complaint handling.

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

Overview

Ms C said that she had to replace the shock absorbers on her car following a journey around Edinburgh when she had to negotiate a number of bumps and potholes.  She raised a claim for compensation with The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) and also raised the general issue of the condition of the city's roads with them.  Ms C was unhappy that her claim was refused and with the response she had received to her concerns about road maintenance.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) did not correctly handle Ms C's claim for compensation (upheld); and
• (b) did not respond appropriately to her concerns (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) pass a copy of this report and the information provided by them relating to location X and location Y to their Claims Handlers for re-consideration of the claim;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the delays in processing her claim;
• (iii) ensure that all organisations working on their behalf are aware of the Council's complaints procedure, and the Ombudsman's role within this, and are given guidance on how to respond if complaints are made relating to work undertaken for the Council;
• (iv) review actions taken in response to previous reports and ensure that these would also remedy the problems identified in this report or undertake appropriate action to do so; and
• (v) apologise to Ms C for the faults in the complaint handling identified in this report.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council notify her when the recommendations have been implemented.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment of her late husband (Mr C) and the handling of his complaint about that care and treatment by Lothian NHS Board (the Board).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mr C was prematurely discharged from the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Hospital 1) on 16 September 2005 (upheld);
• (b) the Board failed to provide Mr C with appropriate and timely care and treatment between 27 September 2005 and 6 October 2005 (upheld); and
• (c) the Board failed to make an adequate response to Mrs C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) inform her of progress towards achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 16 of this Report; and
• (ii) make a written apology to Mrs C for the failure to maintain proper records and the additional distress this has caused to Mr C's family in pursuing this matter.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the tree preservation order (TPO) protecting trees on his land and The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s response, in relation to the site, to a Public Local Inquiry (PLI).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) revoked the consent granted to Mr C in 1998 to fell trees covered by a TPO without a valid reason and without informing him of this fact (upheld);
• (b) gave Mr C erroneous information about the legislation governing TPOs (upheld); and
• (c) gave incorrect information to the PLI about the management plan in place for the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) and trees on Mr C's land (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for wrongly informing him that the consent granted to him to fell the trees had expired;
• (ii) formally request the necessary information from Mr C on the trees to be felled so that their knowledge on the tree work is up-to-date;
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for giving him erroneous information about the legislation governing TPOs and about the statutory time limit placed on the removal of the trees;
• (iv) remind staff of the importance of giving accurate information in response to enquiries from members of the public;
• (v) apologise to Mr C for the fact that they gave incorrect information about the management plan to the PLI; and
• (vi) take steps to investigate how this error occurred and to ensure that officers are in possession of accurate information when responding to a PLI.

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

Overview

The complainants were unhappy that Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) had allowed an unauthorised development to take place, that access to their properties had been affected, and with how the Park Authority had dealt with the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure by the Park Authority to take enforcement action in respect of unauthorised development of a pathway (not upheld);
• (b) failure by the Park Authority to stop a vehicle turning circle being used as a car park (not upheld); and
• (c) poor enquiry and complaint handling (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Park Authority:

• (i) formally notify the conservation charity that the pathway near to Mr C and Mr D's homes is unauthorised (see paragraph 9), explain to them in detail why this is the case, and advise that any future development undertaken by the charity within the National Park must go through the proper planning process. The Park Authority should mention this specific case as an example so that the charity is aware that if plans change from those initially envisaged, they must consider whether planning permission should be sought and seek further advice from the Park Authority. This is in line with the Park Authority's Enforcement Policy (see paragraph 11). A copy of this formal notification should be sent to Mr C, Mr D and the Ombudsman; and
• (ii) review its complaint handling procedures.

The Park Authority have accepted the recommendations and are currently reviewing the complaint handling procedures as part of an organisation-wide governance review.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised two main issues:  whether or not housing association staff informed a prospective tenant (Mr A) about anti-social behaviour problems; and, how the housing association's parent organisation responded to the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the alleged failure of Link Housing staff to inform Mr A about anti-social behaviour problems in the area of the property (no finding); and
• (b) the investigation conducted by Link Group Limited (Link Group) was flawed and not in accordance with the complaints policy (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Link Group consider:

• (i) seeking external advice, for example from the Information Commissioner's Office, on how to deal with disclosure of information on third parties who are responsible for anti-social behaviour;
• (ii) amending the checklist used at sign-up so that it clearly shows that information on their anti-social behaviour policy has been passed to the tenant. Link Group might also wish to consider a free-form section on the checklist so that staff can note other relevant or specific issues that have been discussed. Link Group should remind its staff that the checklist must be signed by their staff and the tenant in all cases;
• (iii) making a record of interviews with staff that are conducted as part of an internal investigation; and
• (iv) what is meant by 'full and fair' as stated in their complaints policy.

Link Group have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about how the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) dealt with a planning application for demolition of the existing bungalow and construction of a two storey house on a site which borders the rear of her property to the south and how they dealt with her complaint about it.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) disregarded Mrs C's objections (not upheld);
• (b) did not adhere to their own policies in determining the application (not upheld); and
• (c) failed to deal with Mrs C's complaint appropriately (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care and treatment she had received for a bowel condition.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that there was failure:

• (a) by medical staff to manage adequately Mrs C's care, reach a diagnosis quickly and provide appropriate treatment (not upheld);
• (b) to keep Mrs C in a special unit for a reasonable time following her operation (not upheld);
• (c) by nursing staff to provide adequate post-operative nursing care (upheld);
• (d) to provide a clean room (not upheld); and
• (e) to discharge Mrs C from hospital within a reasonable time (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) stress to clinicians the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that patients are made aware of the reasons for clinical decisions made in relation to their care, particularly when being transferred between medical teams;
• (ii) provide evidence of the use of their Manual Handling Policy on all wards so that staff are aware of patients' handling needs and the recording of these needs and provide further evidence that staff receive the appropriate training in handling techniques;
• (iii) put in place procedures to prevent a recurrence of the delay in replacing broken handsets and, in the interim, ensure alternatives are available;
• (iv) provide evidence of the strategies in place to implement effective patient discharge planning; and
• (v) provide evidence of recent audit of nursing discharge planning on the surgical wards.

The Board have accepted the recommendations and have acted upon them accordingly.