West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant was concerned that he had been removed from his Dental Practice's patient register.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about Mr C's de-registration from the dental list (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations in respect of this complaint.  However, she considered (see paragraph 9) that dentists in general and patients could find it helpful to have guidance on removing patients from dental lists.  The matter was raised with the Scottish Executive Health Department, and the Ombudsman is pleased to report that they have agreed to consider this.

Overview

The complaint concerned the decision to issue a Provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on trees on land owned by the complainant (Mrs C) and that, in the subsequent decision to confirm the TPO, she said that the Director of Planning failed to represent properly her objections to the Planning and Development Control Committee.  Later, when Mrs C complained to the Chief Executive, she said he failed to consider the matter properly.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Director of Planning failed to represent properly her objections to the Planning and Development Control Committee (not upheld); and
• (b) the Chief Executive failed to consider her complaint properly (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that treatment to one of her teeth was inadequate and quickly failed.  She was also unhappy about the way her complaint about this had been handled by the dental practice.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the treatment given on 6 December 2004 was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the complaint about this was not handled appropriately (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice apologise to Ms C for any confusion caused by the letter of 30 June 2005.

The Practice have accepted the recommendation and will act accordingly.  The Ombudsman asks that the Practice notify her when the recommendations have been implemented.

Overview

The complaint concerns Renfrewshire Council's alleged delay in progressing a housing benefit appeal.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that there was delay in progressing the housing benefit appeal (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) ensures that appellants receive regular, written updates of the progress of their case;
• (i) apologise for not advising the complainant of the outcome of a review; and
• (ii) make an appropriate payment in recognition of the time and trouble taken in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman.

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

Overview

The complaint concerned the response time taken for an Ambulance to attend following an emergency telephone call.  The complainant (Miss C) was unhappy about the delay and the explanations given for this.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was an inadequate response to a '999' call (partially upheld); and
• (b) there was excessive delay in responding to Miss C's complaint and in the review which followed (upheld).

 Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Service:

• (i) provide the Crew involved in the incident with a copy of this report and ensure that steps are taken to identify and provide any training needs relating to responding to emergency calls;
• (ii) apologise to Miss C and her family for the delays experienced while pursuing her complaint; and
• (iii) review their complaint handling systems and procedure and, in particular, systems designed to track and monitor the progress of complaints.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about a delayed referral for orthodontic treatment.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Dentist delayed making an orthodontic referral (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant raised concerns about inadequate and delayed dental treatment.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) clinical treatment was inadequate (not upheld); and
• (b) the referral was delayed (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns about how the repairs contract on his property was managed and his dissatisfaction with the increased cost from the original estimate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to adequately supervise work on site and ensure costs were minimised (partially upheld);
• (b) failure to maintain contact with the complainant and consult with him about additional works (not upheld);
• (c) failure to ensure that the work was carried out on time and in accordance with the statutory notice schedule (upheld); and
• (d) failure to comply with their customer care charter (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review and reinforce the advice given on site visits and ensure that the guidance makes clear to officers that they are required to record every site visit which is carried out.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) was concerned that her cancer could have been diagnosed earlier had the appropriate referral been made, and felt that Lothian NHS Board failed to deal with her complaint in a satisfactory manner.  During my investigation, concern was also raised over the content of a letter from a Consultant Surgeon regarding the investigation of Ms C's mammograms.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure to make appropriate referrals despite agreed practice (upheld) the consequences of which had a devastating impact on Ms C's life (not upheld);
• (b) that the NHS complaints process took too long (upheld) and that the NHS Independent Review Panel’s report did not reflect many of the issues raised and made no recommendations (not upheld); and
• (c) whether a question raised by a Consultant Surgeon regarding the appropriateness of the investigation of Ms C's mammograms was justified (no finding).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recognises that the Board have already taken steps to address the issues raised and, therefore, has no recommendations to make.  She has, however, asked that the Board let her have further information about the monitoring of their referrals process.

Overview

Mr C complained that in calculating the financial assets of his father (Mr A) East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) decided to disregard the transfer of Mr A's home to his son nine years previously for 'love, favour and affection' and included the notional value of the Property in his assets.  As a consequence of this notional capital Mr A was regarded as self-funding for his care home costs.  Mr A had no actual funds and was not able to pay his costs.  Mr C stated that his father was faced with bankruptcy and eviction because of the debts incurred.  Mr C complained that the Council had not acted reasonably in reaching the decision to regard Mr A as in possession of notional capital as they had reached a decision based on assumptions rather than real evidence.  Mr C also complained about the lack of an independent appeal procedure to review his complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council acted unreasonably in reaching a decision that it would not fund Mr A's care home costs (upheld); and
• (b) the Council had no effective procedure for reviewing its decision (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their current practice for assessment of nominal capital to ensure that it complies with the spirit of the relevant regulations;
• (ii) reassess Mr A's financial means, excluding the nominal value of the Property; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for the previous lack of formal procedures available to him to progress his complaint.

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