West of Scotland

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) raised concerns about the care and treatment that she received from her GP and a consultant psychiatrist.  Ms C claimed that, following their misdiagnosis of her, her daughter was placed in foster care.

Specific Complaints and Conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) GP 1 and Consultant 1 came to their own conclusions about Ms C's mental health without checking whether her account was accurate (not upheld);
• (b) GP 1 and Consultant 1 did not have any evidence on which to recommend that Ms C should be detained for medical treatment (not upheld); and
• (c) as a result of the incorrect and misleading medical assessments of Ms C, her daughter was taken away from her and put into foster care (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that there had been excessive delay by The City of Edinburgh Council in arranging the Social Work Complaints Review Committee (CRC) he had requested.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to arrange the CRC within a reasonable time (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures for arranging Social Work Complaints Review Committees; and
• (ii) make a payment to Mr C of £200 for the unnecessary delay in arranging the CRC.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) alleged that, without checking its veracity, the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) accepted, and kept on his file, information implying that he had been convicted and imprisoned for murder.  He said that the Council then passed this information to a third party, which resulted in his and his partner's fertility treatment being suspended.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council passed unsubstantiated and incorrect information to a third party (not upheld);
• (b) the Council's Head of Service was allowed to remain at a Social Work Complaints Review Hearing while his appeal was decided (not upheld); and
• (c) in reporting their decision, the Council made an inappropriate reference to the Bichard Enquiry (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained that they had been misled into believing that a planning case officer from Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Park Authority) would visit them at their home to view the impact of their neighbours' proposed development.  This did not happen and they were aggrieved to learn subsequently that consent had been granted by officers under delegated powers.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that a planning  case officer from the Park Authority failed to visit Mr and Mrs C at their home to discuss their concerns prior to their neighbours' planning application being determined (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainant raised a concern about the care she received at her dental practice while having a dental impression taken.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is about failure to provide appropriate care when taking a dental impression (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues involving the care of his late uncle.  Mr C complained about an inappropriate relationship and subsequent bequest of property to a social work employee.  He also complained about the employee's involvement in the purchase of a council house and the making of a Will.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) West Lothian Council (the Council) breached their policies and the Care Commission guidelines on caring for vulnerable clients in relation to the making of Wills, the purchase of a client's house and the acceptance of gifts (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to adequately respond to Mr C's representations (not upheld); and
• (c) the investigation carried out by the Council into the case was inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

This complaint concerns Muirhouse Housing Association's (the Association) response to the complainant (Ms C)'S request for action to be taken to prevent the use of a boundary wall by local children.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Association failed to prevent people climbing over the boundary wall which adjoins Ms C's garden to access the adjacent site (not upheld); and
• (b) the Association failed to ensure Ms C's garden was secure (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of issues with East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) concerning the Council's handling of three planning applications submitted for the erection of residential units on a site close to his property.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council, in their handling of the planning applications, have breached planning procedures and misled the public (see Annex 2) (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

The complainant raised a number of complaints regarding a development near his home. His complaint was that the development was breaching terms of the planning permission granted by the Council as well as other issues regarding the development.

Overview

Mr C raised a number of concerns about his experience as a student with the University of Paisley as part of their collaboration with a Greek institution.  He complained that the facilities in Greece were inadequate; his supervision was affected when he was given a supervisor based in Paisley; there were problems with the finance office, which meant he was unable to access online support for six months; and there were delays in responding to his complaints.

Specific Complaints and Conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  there was a lack of support services for students based in Greece (not upheld);
• (b)  the problems with the finance office led to him being unable to access online services for six months (not upheld);
• (c)  the replacement of his supervisor with a moderator based at Paisley affected the quality of supervision available to him (not upheld); and
• (d)  there were delays in dealing with Mr C's academic appeal and subsequent complaints (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.