West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant, Ms C, complained that her client, Mr A, was treated unfairly in the way his Council Tax arrears were pursued.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  it was not reasonable to pursue Mr A's Council Tax arrears after six years without notification (not upheld); and
• (b)  the Council failed to link Mr A's old account to his new one, thus making it difficult to pursue his arrears (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the care provided to her husband (Mr C) by Ambulance staff on 7 January 2005 during his discharge home from hospital.  Mr C was terminally ill with advanced cancer at this time.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the ambulance crew failed to take adequate care in carrying Mr C from the ambulance to his home (upheld);
• (b)  a crew member spoke aggressively to Mr C's family when they challenged the crew about how they were carrying Mr C (no finding); and
• (c)  there was an excessive and uncomfortable delay while waiting for a new crew to arrive (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (i)  apologise in writing to Mrs C for the distress and anxiety caused by the failure to provide suitable equipment to staff and ensure that staff had been adequately trained in manual handling techniques for the equipment available; and
• (ii)  consider the recommendations from the Specialist Adviser and provide the Ombudsman's office with an action plan arising from consideration of the recommendations.

The Service have accepted the recommendations and will report back to the Ombudsman on progress towards achieving them.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) claimed that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by him and his wife (Mrs C) regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents and failed to consider witness statements and video evidence.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action in response to complaints made by Mr and Mrs C regarding the anti-social behaviour of two local residents including the consideration of witness statements and video evidence (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to formalise their complaint into the Council's Feedback Procedure at the correct time;
• (ii) ensure any future complaints by Mr and Mrs C are dealt with in accordance with current procedural requirements; and
• (iii) ensure that staff involved with complaints of the same or a similar type are adequately trained in current Council procedures.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment which her son (Mr A) received from the GP Practice (the Practice) and that doctors failed to diagnose that he was suffering from pneumonia which resulted in an emergency hospital admission.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that doctors at the Practice provided Mr A with inadequate treatment and failed to diagnose that he was suffering from pneumonia (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice shares this report with the GPs concerned to reflect on the lessons learned in relation to the importance of chest examination in diagnosing chest disease and the difficulties of assessment of patients with communication difficulties.  The Ombudsman further recommends that GP 2 shares the case with his/her appraiser at annual appraisal if this has not already been done.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a concern about the treatment which her son (Mr A) received from a GP (the GP) from NHS Lothian Unscheduled Care Service (LUCS) on 25 April 2006.  Mrs C said the GP failed to diagnose that Mr A was suffering from pneumonia which resulted in an emergency hospital admission on 26 April 2006.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the GP provided Mr A with inadequate treatment and failed to diagnose that he was suffering from pneumonia (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board share this report with the GP to reflect on the lessons learned in relation to the importance of chest examination in diagnosing chest disease and the difficulties of assessment of patients with communication difficulties and share the case with his appraiser at annual appraisal if he has not already done so.

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

Overview

Three complainants (Mr A, Mr B and Mrs C) were concerned that they did not receive any notification of a neighbour's planning application to build two extensions to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action once they were alerted by the complainants that they had not been notified of their neighbour's planning application (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant Ms C raised a number of concerns about how the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) dealt with her reports to them about the removal of an original fireplace from a listed building.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to deal with Ms C's concerns about the fireplace appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)         within three months, follow up the evidence disclosed in this report and consider whether there are grounds to review their decision to take no further enforcement action;
• (ii)        emphasise to Enforcement Officers the importance of obtaining entry and making proper enquiries; and
• (iii)       apologise to Ms C for failing to deal with her concerns appropriately.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the dental treatment she received prior to and following surgical extraction of teeth on 3 May 2005.  She also raised concerns that she had not given informed consent, there was a lack of communication from staff and poor complaints handling.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the treatment which was provided prior to and following surgical extraction of teeth on 3 May 2005 was inadequate and it was inappropriate to extract an additional tooth (not upheld);
• (b)       staff failed to obtain informed consent from Mrs C (not upheld);
• (c)       communication from staff was poor (partially upheld); and
• (d)       there were delays and communication failures when handling the complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board  remind staff of the timescales in the NHS Complaints Procedure Guidance and offer Mrs C an apology for the failings which have been identified.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the delay in diagnosing his sister's stroke and admitting her to hospital.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       NHS 24 failed to make a correct diagnosis despite evidence to indicate that Mrs D had suffered a stroke (not upheld);
• (b)       NHS 24 failed to give this case a high priority (not upheld);
• (c)       NHS 24 incorrectly called for an out-of-hours GP rather than an ambulance (not upheld);
• (d)       the GP failed to stay with the patient whilst waiting for the ambulance (upheld);
• (e)       the GP failed to give the case a high priority (upheld);
• (f)        the GP failed to provide a referral note to the hospital (not upheld); and
• (g)       the ambulance took an unreasonable time to attend (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)        reflect on what lessons can be learned from this case;
• (ii)       consider how to communicate these lessons to Practitioners; and
• (iii)      advise her of their conclusions.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (iv)      issue a further apology to Mr C and his nephew Mr D in respect of the additional delays in responding to the call from the GP;
• (v)       issue an apology for the incorrect information detailed in their earlier response to the complaint; and
• (vi)      consider reviewing their procedures for adhering to timescales for attendance at incidents, particularly with a view to ensuring that the correct information is provided to callers.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about the kitchen installation and electrical upgrade to his home which were carried out by East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council).  These included the process by which the Council decided on the layout of the new kitchen; compensation for damage caused to their home when the work was being carried out and for the loss of their kitchen hood due to the upgrade; and the length of time taken by the Council to carry out and complete various repairs to the house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)        the kitchen installed by the Council is inadequate due to lack of adequate storage space and drawers (not upheld);
• (b)        the Council did not take adequate action to improve the kitchen which was installed in Mr and Mrs C's home (not upheld);
• (c)        compensation offered to Mr C for damage caused to his home and loss of their cooker hood was inadequate (not upheld);
• (d)        no re-decoration grant was offered to Mr C after installation of new central heating system (not upheld); and
• (e)        the time taken by the Council to carry out and complete various repairs has been unacceptably long (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.