West of Scotland

Overview

The complaint concerned the administrative actions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) relating to complaint handling, with specific reference to how COPFS performed against its own service standards and customer feedback policy.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the administrative actions of COPFS relating to their handling of the complaint were inappropriate, limited to how COPFS performed against response timescales in their own service standards and customer feedback policy (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned a decision made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) in relation to the award of civil legal aid, which the complainant (Ms C) claimed unfairly disadvantaged her, showed bias and was a misuse of the public purse.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Ms C was unfairly disadvantaged by SLAB's decision to grant an extension of civil legal aid to her opponent in legal action, after an extension of civil legal aid was not granted to Ms C (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has made a general recommendation that SLAB should consider whether the documents it produces are clear enough on how members of the public can seek a review of SLAB decisions and how to give appropriate procedural advice (not legal representation) about this to the public.  SLAB should, of course, do this without compromising its obligations under statute.

SLAB have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Miss C) complained that Lothian NHS Board (the Board) failed to provide the necessary out-of-hours care to her fiancé (referred to in this report as Mr A) on the night of the 26 and 27 April 2004, contributing to his death from acute haemorrhagic pancreatitis on 27 April 2004.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  GP 2 failed to make an appropriate differential diagnosis of Mr A's medical condition (not upheld);
• (b)  the telephone receptionist failed to record and pass on all the symptoms described to him by Miss C (upheld);
• (c)  GP 3 failed to take a comprehensive medical history (upheld);
• (d)  GP 3 failed to give appropriate advice about paracetamol (not upheld); and
• (e)  the out-of-hours service failed to respond appropriately to Miss C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)  use the events of this complaint as part of future training for out-of-hours staff to reiterate the importance of good communication skills; and
• (ii)  (as the successor organisation) apologise to Miss C for the failure to properly handle her complaint in accordance with the regulations.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised a number of concerns relating to her tenancy, including complaints about the adequacy of repairs to her flat and dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  work to treat woodworm infestation, dampness and rot was not carried out promptly or effectively (not upheld);
• (b)  furnishings removed to carry out inspections and treatment were not correctly reinstated (not upheld);
• (c)  concerns raised about anti-social behaviour were not adequately addressed (not upheld);
• (d)  the Council failed to respond to a formal complaint (upheld); and
• (e)  the repossession of a lock-up garage was carried out improperly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  review the system for ensuring the quality of repair work completed; and
• (ii)  apologise to Ms C for failing to respond to a formal complaint.

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

Overview

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints from parents (the Parents) of patients at the Practice about delayed orthodontic treatment at the Practice.  The Practice had advised the Parents that the delays were not the fault of the Practice but NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) which must give the Practice approval to commence orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay by the Practice in carrying out orthodontic treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  there was a delay by NHSNSS in granting approval for orthodontic work to commence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice and NHSNSS continue meaningful discussions to decide the circumstances where radiographs are required in individual cases which require prior approval for the Practice to commence orthodontic treatment.

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

Overview

The Ombudsman received a number of complaints from parents (the Parents) of patients at the Practice about delayed orthodontic treatment at the Practice.  The Practice had advised the Parents that the delays were not the fault of the Practice but NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) which must give the Practice approval to commence orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  there was a delay by the Practice in carrying out orthodontic treatment (not upheld); and
• (b)  there was a delay by NHSNSS in granting approval for orthodontic work to commence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice and NHSNSS continue meaningful discussions to decide the circumstances where radiographs are required in individual cases which require prior approval for the Practice to commence orthodontic treatment.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and his neighbour Mrs D), were concerned that The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) failed to require that they be re-notified when an amended planning application was received from Mr C and Mrs D's neighbour.  Mr C and Mrs D were also concerned that the original plans and planning application were missing from the Council's planning file.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a)  failed to require that Mr C and Mrs D be re-notified when an amended planning application was received from Mr C and Mrs D's neighbour (no finding); and
• (b)  failed to keep adequate records (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association (the Association)'s failure to replace the complainant (Mrs C)'s daughter (Ms C)'s garden shed with a larger one in order to house her electric wheelchair.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Association failed to replace Mrs C's daughter's garden shed with a larger one in order to house Ms C's electric wheelchair (not upheld); and
• (b)      Mrs C's daughter was never told she would have to bear the cost herself (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that she was no longer receiving regular visits from a local representative and that Trust Housing Association (the Association) had introduced a protocol to regulate her contact with them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Association:

• (a)      had unfairly introduced a protocol to regulate Mrs C's contact with them and, as a result, she no longer receives visits from a local representative and has difficulty booking guest rooms (not upheld); and
• (b)      had not handled Mrs C's complaints about this appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association provide Mrs C with a copy of their new complaints procedure and any changes to the Persistent and Vexatious Complaints policy made as a result of their current review.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned about the process of consultation surrounding a byelaw review carried out by Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority).  Mr C complained that public responses were not correctly recorded and the process by which consultants were appointed was unclear.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that : Cconsultation relating to a recent byelaw review was inadequate and, in particular, public responses were not correctly recorded and the process by which consultants were appointed were unclear (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make