West of Scotland

Overview 

The complainant (Mrs C) had concerns about some aspects of communication at the Western Infirmary, Glasgow (the Hospital), and about their decision to transfer her 84-year-old husband (Mr C) to a hospital near his home in England.  When Mr C was being transferred by ambulance from the WesternHospital Infirmary to the English hospital, his condition worsened, and she complained that the ambulance crew continued the journey, instead of stopping at another hospital on the way.  He died in the English hospital a few days later.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) communication with the family and care at the GlHasgow hospital wereere inadequate (not upheld);
• (b) the ambulance crew's decision to continue the journey was inappropriate (not upheld but recommendations made for the Health Board and for the Scottish Ambulance Service);
• (c) the ambulance crew's record- keeping lacked detail (upheld);
• (d) the Glasgow hHospital should have operated (not upheld); and
• (e) the Glasgow hHospital should not have allowed the ambulance journey (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the Health Board ensure that, where appropriate, 'Do Not Attempt Resuscitation' orders (DNARs) are communicated clearly, in writing, for ambulance crews and receiving hospitals;
• (ii) the Scottish Ambulance Service ensure that, where appropriate, ambulance crews obtain formal written DNAR information from referring hospitals; and
• (iii) the Scottish Ambulance Service ensure that record- keeping by ambulance crews during journeys is adequate.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns about the way in which the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) dealt with a planning application for a site adjoining her property.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Ms C was unreasonably denied the opportunity to address the Planning Committee as she had requested and as she had been invited (not upheld);
• (b)  the Park Authority deliberately and consistently refused to accept the effects of the proposed development on Ms C's home (not upheld);
• (c)  Ms C's objections were never addressed properly (not upheld); and
• (d)  Ms C was excluded from the planning process by the inappropriate use of standing orders (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Planning staff take care before issuing standard letters to ensure that their terms apply to the circumstances pertaining.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about the treatment provided by his General Dental Practitioner (the Dentist) in regard to the provision of a set of upper and lower dentures.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the treatment which the Dentist provided to Mr C concerning upper and lower denture plates was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The aggrieved (Mr and Mrs A) who were represented by their MSP (Mr C), were concerned that publicity for the Executive's Central Heating Programme for over 60s was inadequate, leading to unfair treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a failure to promote and advertise properly the central heating programme for over 60s (not upheld);
• (b)  Mr and Mrs A were unfairly treated in missing the opportunity to apply for a grant (not upheld); and
• (c)  they were unfairly treated in being refused some compensation for the cost of installing central heating (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes no recommendations in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained that two Council officers pursued a personal vendetta against him and his family.  He said as a consequence, he has been incorrectly pursued for nearly £7,000 in Council Tax arrears which he felt obliged to pay.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  Council officers pursued a vendetta against Mr C by treating his neighbour more favourably and not enforcing her tenancy conditions (not upheld); and
• (b)  Mr C was incorrectly pursued for Council Tax arrears and that affected his right to buy his Council house (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was unhappy that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) had agreed to sell some land to a neighbour and to also allow the neighbour to garden some land owned by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the decision of the Council to sell the land (not upheld); and
• (b)  the decision of the Council to allow a neighbour to garden some land owned by the Council (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensure all relevant staff dealing with a land purchase application are informed when complaints are being considered;
• (ii)  ensure that complainants are kept informed of the progress of their complaint; and
• (iii)  clarify the maintenance arrangements for the land with Mrs C.

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

Overview

The complainant, Miss C, was unhappy that despite initially agreeing to sell to her some land next to her home which she said she had been gardening for some time, the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) decided they would only sell her a reduced amount of land and required some of the landscaping to be undone.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  the decision of the Council to sell some but not all of the land to Miss C (not upheld); and
• (b)  the decision of the Council to remove some of the gardening on the land retained by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  clarify their policy on 'piecemeal' sales; and
• (ii)  clarify the maintenance arrangements for the land with Miss C.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned the handling of an appeal against a local authority planning decision by the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU).  The complainant alleged that SEIRU failed to follow their own procedures.  He also alleged that communication from SEIRU was of a poor standard and that SEIRU/the Reporter failed to explain decisions, resulting in the complainant (Mr C)'s view that SEIRU lacked accountability.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the SEIRU failed to follow their own procedures (not upheld)
• (b)  the Reporter failed to explain decisions (not upheld); and
• (c)  there was poor communication from SEIRU (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that SEIRU:

• (i)  should consider when writing to complainants how best to give clear, plain English, explanations supported by references to relevant statute where appropriate;
• (ii)  should consider developing guidelines for Reporters on recording measurements and their presentation in letters and reports; and
• (iii)  should ensure that its complaints procedure is made clear to complainants at an early stage after they have made their complaint.

SEIRU have accepted the recommendations.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the way Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Authority) investigated his complaint about the tendering process for the distribution of the Authority's publicity material.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Authority failed to carry out a proper investigation into Mr C's complaint (not upheld);
• (b)  the Authority's investigation into Mr C's complaint took an unacceptable time to complete (upheld);
• (c)  the Authority's response to the complaint was inaccurate (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Authority failed to respond to Mr C's letter of 26 August 2005 in a timeous fashion (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Authority:

• (i)  ensure compliance with their complaints procedure, in particular they ensure that information about a complainant's rights to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman's office is always provided; and
• (ii)  ensure that complainants are kept informed of the progress of their complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was unhappy that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) had terminated his grant for legal aid on the grounds that he had not informed them he was living with a partner (Ms C) and a report placed before a court said that he was.  Mr C said he had not been living with Ms C and SLAB did not give him the opportunity to produce evidence concerning this.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that SLAB terminated Mr C's legal aid without considering his evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.