West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy that, despite recent changes in Age Discrimination legislation, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (the SAAS) would not award grants to any person over 55.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the SAAS would not award a grant to Mr C because of his age (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the SAAS, when explaining their position to students, inform them that they have taken into account current guidance when reaching their decision and what this guidance says.

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

Overview

An MSP complained on behalf of his constituent, Mrs C, after she had been informed by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) that she could not hold both a card which gave her subsidised taxi transport and a card for the national concessionary bus pass scheme.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council would not allow Mrs C to have a local taxicard if she also held a national concessionary bus pass (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) whose child attended a local primary school, was concerned that a decision taken by East Renfrewshire Council (the Council) to withdraw the provision of free school buses for children of primary school age living within a two mile radius of a school was taken without risk assessment, impact analysis or transport assessment.  She believed that the decision-making process was flawed.  In addition, Ms C complained that the Council had not followed their complaints procedure and that correspondence she received from the Council's Chief Executive was inappropriate and intimidating.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council's decision to withdraw free school buses was taken without risk assessment, impact analysis or transport assessment (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council did not adhere to their complaints process (upheld);
• (c)  the Council's conduct in communicating with Ms C was unprofessional and inappropriate (not upheld); and
• (d)  a letter sent from the Chief Executive to Ms C on 15 May 2006, headed 'Staff Protocols', was inappropriate and intimidating (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Ms C for failing to accept her complaint under their complaints procedure;
• (ii)  put in place measures to ensure that, in future, complainants are given accurate information straightaway when their complaints will not be accepted under paragraph 6 of the Council's complaints procedure; and
• (iii)  apologise to Ms C for sending her what I consider is an inappropriate and intimidating letter.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns that the needs of his mother-in-law (Mrs A) had been inappropriately assessed by social work staff from East Renfrewshire Council (ERC SWD), when she was discharged from hospital to Mr and Mrs C's home in Glasgow; and that they did not make an appropriate referral to their counterparts at Glasgow City Council Social Services (GCC SWD).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  following meetings on 17 August 2005 and 6 September 2005, ERC SWD failed to contact GCC SWD to arrange for Mrs A's needs to be assessed (not upheld);
• (b)  ERC SWD  failed to advise Mr C and his wife (Mrs C) as to what entitlement to assistance  there might be for caring for Mrs A in their home (not upheld); and
• (c)  ERC SWD failed to advise Mr and Mrs C that, to qualify for grant aid for the installation of bathroom facilities for Mrs A, prior approval of the works was required (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

Although not upholding the complaint, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the issue of advice to relatives of patients previously relying on support from the Council's Social Work Department on discharge from hospital to a relative's care.  The Council informed her that they are happy to take on board the recommendation and to review the advice currently given.

.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about noise nuisance from a neighbouring bus station.  He was concerned that adequate acoustic screening had not been put in place following a redevelopment and that complaints about continuing nuisance were not handled appropriately by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council have not dealt adequately with noise nuisance from a local bus station (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  undertake a thorough review of the complaints handling procedures of the departments involved to ensure that complainants and Council staff understand how complaints should be processed and dealt with.  On this point the Ombudsman draws the Council's attention to the Valuing Complaints initiative produced by the Ombudsman's office;
• (ii)  develop appropriate policies and procedures for dealing with noise nuisance;
• (iii)  take noise readings to assess the adequacy of the arrangements already put in place; and
• (iv)  apologise to Mr C for their poor handling of his complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the care his late wife, Mrs C, received in hospital where she received surgery and subsequently died.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the full risks of surgery were never explained to Mrs C or Mr C (upheld);
• (b)  the Hospital failed to explain why Mrs C's drips were removed on 24 August 2004 (upheld);
• (c)  the Hospital failed to investigate adequately the cause of Mrs C's confusion and agitation displayed the week before her deterioration (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Hospital did not let Mr C know at the first opportunity that his wife was going into final decline and, as a result, he was denied the chance to spend valuable time with her before her death (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board audit their practice in obtaining informed patient consent and implement any necessary change.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that it was not until six years after the conclusion of her divorce that she was presented with her bill for legal services.  She believed this was an unreasonable length of time to have elapsed and that the actions of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) had been responsible for causing a delay to the presentation of her final liability.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the SLAB unreasonably delayed the presentation of Ms C's final liability relating to her divorce proceedings (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Prior to the publication of this report, SLAB apologised to Ms C for the delay as the Ombudsman had recommended in a draft version of this report.  The Ombudsman has no further recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns that the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to carry out works which, under the tenancy agreement, they were obliged to do.  This resulted in her grandmother (Mrs D)'s home being broken into and both her grandmother and herself suffering racial abuse.  Additionally, Ms C feels the Council failed to respond appropriately to her complaints about their treatment.  Ms C states that her grandmother was forced to give up her tenancy as a result of the racial abuse and has lost monies she had spent in renovating the house prior to giving up the tenancy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  offered Mrs D a house which was not habitable (not upheld);
• (b)  failed to carry out works which they are required to do under the Tenancy Agreement (partially upheld);
• (c)  failed to take action to address racial harassment Mrs D was experiencing, in particular, they failed to promptly remove racist graffiti (not upheld); and
• (d)  failed to provide details of their Racial Harassment procedure when requested to do so (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  highlight to officers the importance of maintaining written records of contacts with tenants and potential tenants, in particular in respect of missed appointments;
• (ii)  review their adherence to their documented repairs policy;
• (iii)  highlight to staff the importance of ensuring good communication between staff and members of the public; and
• (iv)  ensure that sufficient training has been carried out to ensure that staff are familiar with their responsibilities under the Council's Racial Harassment procedure.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns in respect of her attendance at the Breast Screening Service for tests and subsequent correspondence relating to her results.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a lack of information at the screening appointment (not upheld);
• (b)  the discharge letter was unclear (upheld);
• (c)  the Breast Screening Service failed to fully address Ms C's concerns (upheld); and
• (d)  the Breast Screening Service failed to issue a letter notifying Ms C that she was clear of breast cancer (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  consider reviewing the wording of the discharge letter; and
• (ii)  review procedures to ensure that telephone calls to the Breast Care Service are responded to appropriately.

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