West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to correct an error on her council tax account, which led to incorrect demands and a summary warrant being issued against her.  Mrs C was also concerned that her complaint had not been handled appropriately and in line with the Council's complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to correct, despite three attempts to do so, an error on Mrs C's council tax account, which led to incorrect demands and a summary warrant being issued against her (upheld); and
• (b)  failed to handle Mrs C's complaint appropriately and in line with their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council provide training for their staff on the terms of their complaints procedure and on the importance of following that procedure when complaints and concerns are raised by members of the public.  The Council should also bring this report to the attention of all staff dealing with council tax matters, in order to ensure that the type of repeated errors that occurred in this case are less likely to occur in future.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns relating to the way in which The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had dealt with his correspondence and subsequent appeal in relation to council tax liability, and the way in which his complaint about this matter had been handled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council's:

• (a)  response in not treating Mr C's letter of 6 December 2005 as an appeal was unreasonable (upheld); and
• (b)  administration of Mr C's correspondence and investigation of his complaint was inadequate (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  introduce a system to record all council tax appeals on receipt.  Target dates should be set to ensure that all appeals are actioned within ten days of receipt, and where appropriate cases are referred to the Valuation Appeals Committee within two months of receipt, unless additional information has been requested.  Management information should be produced to provide assurance to senior managers that management and legislative targets are being met, or to identify the need for remedial action to be taken in good time where the targets have not been met.  The Ombudsman asks that the Council inform her on the introduction of this recommendation; and
• (ii)  review their complaints handling process, introduced in 2006 to ensure it properly identifies the root causes of complaints and uses this information to identify service improvements.

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

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, alleged that an undertaking to defer the decision on his planning appeal was ignored.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that an undertaking to defer the decision on Mr C's planning appeal was ignored (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C), complaining on behalf of the aggrieved (Mrs A), was concerned that East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) failed to provide Mrs A with appropriate advice on two occasions when she attended the Council's Housing Department for advice prior to selling her home and making a homelessness application.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to provide Mrs A with appropriate advice on two occasions when she attended the Council's Housing Department for advice prior to selling her home and making a homelessness application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about statements made by the then First Minister in the Scottish Parliament and about how his complaint was dealt with by the Office of the First Minister.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the First Minister made two inaccurate statements to the Scottish Parliament on 9 February 2006 (not upheld);
• (b)  there is no clear and publicly available complaints procedure for the Office of the First Minister, which should incorporate the right of appeal to an independent body (not upheld);
• (c)  the Scottish Ministerial Code is deficient in that it lacks a clear mechanism for bringing complaints against Scottish Ministers, including the First Minister (partially upheld); and
• (d)  the Office of the First Minister failed to respond to a complaint submitted by Mr C (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i)  Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Executive reflect on how they might bring about greater clarity in the arrangements for making different types of complaint about Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Executive; and
• (ii)  the Scottish Executive review its procedures for acknowledging complaints and keeping complainants informed when target response times cannot be met.

The Scottish Executive have accepted the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained on behalf of his parents (Mr and Mrs A) about the actions of a Sheriff Officer and the way the City of Edinburgh Council subsequently responded to his concerns.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Mr and Mrs A were wrongly pursued for arrears of council tax (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not handle Mr C’s complaint about this matter correctly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her GP Practice (the Practice) withheld information from her when she requested copies of her medical records, initially by not supplying the full records, then by refusing to give written explanations of them and that they wrote misleading and inaccurate referral letters to specialists because they do not believe she had a heart attack.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Practice:

• (a)  manipulated Mrs C’s medical care via misleading and inaccurate referral letters (not upheld); and
• (b)  withheld medical information from Mrs C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a concern that her late father's GP (GP 1) failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to her father (Mr A) in the two days immediately prior to his unexpected death in January 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that GP 1 failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to Mr A (not upheld)

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Please note that this Report contained typographical errors in paragraph 4.  It should read:

4.     On 24 January 2006 the Practice received a call from one of Mr A's daughters (Mrs D) stating that Mr A was shaky and confused and requesting a home visit for him.  GP 1 visited later that day after evening surgery.  GP 1 made a working diagnosis of viral infection (she later noted that a flu virus was prevalent in the community at the time) and advised Mr A to increase his fluid intake and take paracetamol if needed.  GP 1 later called Mrs D and repeated this advice.  The following evening Mrs C called her father and was concerned when he dropped the telephone and she lost contact with him.  Mrs C and Mrs D drove to Mr A's house but could not gain access and called the paramedics who broke down the door.  Mr A was found in a state of collapse and was admitted to hospital by emergency ambulance at 22:30.  He was in acute renal failure and treated with antibiotics and IV fluids.  He suffered a cardiac arrest and died in the early hours of 26 January 2006.  The primary causes of death were listed as multiple organ failure, sepsis and urinary tract infection.

The SPSO has apologised to the complainant for these errors.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of issues regarding his tenancy of a City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) house and also repairs that were carried out to the house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not follow procedure when letting the house (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council did not carry out necessary repairs efficiently (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that he had been unfairly excluded from The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s offices and that his council tax file had been sent out to him without his permission and in inadequate packaging.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  unfairly excluded Mr C from their offices (upheld); and
• (b)  sent Mr C his council tax file in the post against his express wishes and in inadequate packaging (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  adopt a detailed policy for dealing with alleged instances of inappropriate behaviour on the part of customers and ensure that decisions to restrict access to Council offices or otherwise restrict contact with an individual are: properly documented; preceded, where appropriate, by a warning; well justified and communicated clearly to the individual concerned; and subject to internal review and appeal mechanisms; and
• (ii)  apologise to Mr C for the unfair way in which he was excluded from their offices and for failing to provide him with an adequate and detailed explanation regarding the grounds of his exclusion.

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