West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the way counselling sessions were conducted at the Medical Practice. 

Specific complaint and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the counselling sessions were conducted in an inappropriate manner (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation(s)

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised a number of concerns over the handling of his complaint about access protection markings and the consultation process for the extension of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in Edinburgh.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       the Council responses were deliberately unclear and evasive (not upheld);
• (b)       the Council's letters regarding access protection markings were contradictory (not upheld);
• (c)       the Council deliberately ignored information Mr C had given about his ability to contact them, to make it difficult for him to contact them (not upheld);
• (d)       the Council did not respond to his letters in an acceptable time (upheld);
• (e)       the Council did not keep residents informed of the process by letter (not upheld);
• (f)        objections to the proposals for the CPZ were not responded to individually (not upheld);
• (g)       copies of the Report of the Public Hearing into the CPZ were not automatically sent to objectors or residents (not upheld);
• (h)       the Council did not inform residents of changes to parking regulations in their area at the outset but only in phases as the work went on (not upheld);
• (i)        the Council's informing of the public via a website was unacceptable (not upheld); and
• (j)        no reference to Mr C's objections was made in the enquiry report (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mr C for the delay in responding to his letters and review their processes for acknowledging and responding to correspondence.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns about a dentist (the Dentist)'s examination of her sons' teeth.  She also complained that, after raising this with the Dentist, she and her sons were removed from the Dentist's list.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Dentist:

• (a) unreasonably removed Mrs C and her sons from her list (not upheld); and
• (b) did not perform an adequate examination of Mrs C's sons' teeth (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

Although the complaint is not upheld, the Ombudsman has made a general recommendation.  The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist reviews her procedures for handling removal of patients from her list, and that in future she takes into account the advice in any guidelines that are produced.

The Dentist has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the construction of new steps and a patio area on a neighbouring Council property.  In particular, she was concerned that East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) failed to comply with the planning guidelines and failed to ensure that staff followed the correct processes in the issuing of contracts for the construction of the steps and patio area.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which had been investigated is that the Council failed to adhere to the correct planning procedures for patios and decking (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review its procedures to ensure that appropriate consultation with the Planning Department takes place prior to the Council undertaking significant improvements, repairs or developments to Council housing stock.

Overview

The complaint concerned the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s decision to refuse a claim for compensation for damage to a kitchen which had resulted from a leak in an upstairs neighbouring flat.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council's handling of a claim for compensation was flawed when work at a neighbouring flat was allegedly not carried out properly (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council's offer of an apology reinforced by a payment of £50 provided a suitable remedy to the complaint.  She asks the Council to notify her when this action is implemented.  Also, that they look into, and address, the reasons for the delay to ensure that these circumstances are not repeated.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised concerns about East Dunbartonshire Council’s (the Council) failure to pay for their share of repairs in a four unit property where the Council owned one of the units. They also complained about the length of time taken by the Council to answer correspondence.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council did not have the necessary procedures in place to deal with enquiries from home owners and to process repairs on buildings in which they own one of the units (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to train its staff and amend its processes in anticipation of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (upheld);
• (c)  there is no process in place for arbitration in cases where there is a dispute between the Council and owner-occupiers regarding repairs and, additionally, that the Council cannot serve a statutory notice on itself to carry out repairs (not upheld); and
• (d)  the Council took a long time or failed to respond to requests and correspondence from Mr and Mrs C (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)       should meet the legal costs incurred by Mr and Mrs C in pursuing the issue of the Council’s obligations under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004;
• (ii)      make a further payment of £150 to Mr and Mrs C for their time and trouble in pursuing this matter and their subsequent complaint;
• (iii)      apologise to Mr and Mrs C for their failure to respond to their enquiries in August and October 2004; and
• (iv)      take steps to ensure that any enquiries are promptly and appropriately dealt with even if they are received by the wrong department.

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

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding a planning application which had been submitted to Inverclyde Council (the Council) by a developer and the handling of their complaint by the Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Council failed to answer questions put to them by the complainants (upheld);
• (b)      correspondence was sent to the wrong address (upheld); and
• (c)      the Council failed to return telephone calls (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council make a time and trouble payment of £150 to the complainants.

The Council have accepted the recommendation.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised concerns that staff failed to monitor her son (Mr A) following an operation and that when his condition deteriorated they failed to telephone her although staff had been advised of current contact numbers.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      staff failed to monitor Mr A appropriately following the operation (partially upheld);
• (b)      staff did not take adequate action to inform Mrs C that Mr A''s condition had deteriorated (upheld); and
• (c)      staff hid in Mr A's room and watched television (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i)       undertake an audit of the standards of record keeping on Ward 15 and review whether there is a training requirement to make staff aware of the role of the Diabetes and Gastroenterology specialist nurses;. The Ombudsman further recommends that in view of the poor standard of documentation, that the Board implements a strategy to monitor and review patient dependency levels and nurse staffing in order that the quality of nursing records do not suffer as a result of a disparity in patient cohorts
• (ii)      adopt a process to ensure that current contact details are recorded accurately on admission and in particular that when a patient is transferred, that the details are reviewed.  Secondly that the Board ensures that communication with carers (when a patient’s condition deteriorates) is raised with staff as being a key and integral aspect of documentationremind staff to ensure that current contact details are easily identifiable in clinical records particularly when patients are transferred from one area to another; and; and
• (iii)      adopts a process by which the nurses allocated to a patient’s care on each shift are easily identifiable within the records and that any discussion with those staff as a result of a complaint are routinely documented.

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

Overview

Mr C complained of receiving misleading information from, and obstruction of information by, West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) during a consultation process on the future of denominational secondary education in his area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)      provision of misleading information (partially upheld);
• (b)      obstruction of information requested by the complainant (not upheld);
• (c)      maladministration of school rolls (not upheld);
• (d)      maladministration in a report to the Children's Services Committee (not upheld);
• (e)      maladministration of the complaints procedure (not upheld);
• (f)       false and incompetent research (not upheld);
• (g)      misrepresentation in correspondence to elected politicians (not upheld); and
• (h)      categorisation and characterisation of parents to third parties (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

Although I consider that the complainant was provided with some confusing information in the early stage of this matter, I do not propose to make any recommendations in regard to this.  I do not consider that, overall, it seriously prevented the complainant from making representations on the Council's proposals.  Throughout the remainder of the consultation, information was provided to the complainant and he had and took opportunities to make his views known.

Nevertheless, closures or mergers of schools are contentious issues which generate great strength of feeling.  Authorities should remain aware of the need to provide as much information and detail as early as possible in the process.  I have noted that, in this case, the Council carried out an early, informal consultation in addition to the statutory consultation required by regulations.

Overview

A member of the Scottish Parliament (Mr C) complained on behalf of a village residents' association in his constituency.  Until 1999, the village had been the location of a prison, owned and run by the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS).  The prison itself was sold in 2003.  The SPS also owned a number of residential properties in the village, occupied by prison employees.  These properties were serviced by private roads and lighting systems.  Mr C complained that, prior to selling these properties to private individuals, the SPS failed to make appropriate provision for the future upkeep of the roads and lighting.  He also complained that the SPS withdrew, without notice, from a funding agreement they had entered into that he claimed would enable works to be done to the roads and lighting to allow the local authority to take over responsibility for them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the SPS failed to make appropriate provision for the future upkeep of the private roads and lighting systems before selling them (not upheld); and
• (b)      the SPS withdrew, without notice, from a funding agreement to pay for a share of the costs of upgrading the private roads and lighting to a standard that would be satisfactory for the relevant local authority to adopt (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.