West of Scotland

  • Report no:
    200501581
  • Date:
    September 2006
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

The complaint concerned an allegation of failure by the Council to maintain a customer's request for confidentiality. The complainant was dissatisfied with the Council's handling of her representations on the matter and she claimed that they had failed to reply to her correspondence.

  • Report no:
    200500603 200500688
  • Date:
    September 2006
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board Lothian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Mr A was referred to the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit (SLTU) in Edinburgh by his Consultant in Glasgow, for assessment for inclusion on the transplant list but was not considered suitable for inclusion. Mr A's uncle sought to challenge this decision and obtain a second opinion. This took several months and unfortunately Mr A died before a reassessment was possible. Mr C complained that Mr A had not received adequate care or proper assessment.

  • Report no:
    200502458
  • Date:
    August 2006
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

The City of Edinburgh Council
The complainant (Mr C) raised a complaint that his client (Ms D) had accepted the offer of a Council house based on inaccurate information provided by the Council in respect of the central heating system. The Council had advised that the house was fitted with gas central heating when in actual fact only electric storage heaters were fitted. These storage heaters did not have the appropriate meter installed to allow for use of the cheap overnight electricity tariff. As such, Ms D's electricity costs were significantly higher than they would otherwise have been. Mr C pursued the complaint through the Council's formal complaints procedure and, as he remained dissatisfied with their response, referred the matter to the Ombudsman on 5 December 2005.

  • Report no:
    200502324
  • Date:
    August 2006
  • Body:
    Queen Margaret University College
  • Sector:
    Universities

Overview

The complainant was concerned about the level of supervision provided for his masters dissertation; he felt this was inadequate and said he was only supervised for part of his dissertation.

Specific complaint and conclusion

Supervision arrangements for his MSc dissertation were inadequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the University College reinforce to staff the importance of following their policy that, on completion of supervision, copies of the completed forms relating to the supervision are kept in the student's central file.

The University College have accepted the recommendation and will act accordingly.

  • Report no:
    200502820
  • Date:
    July 2006
  • Body:
    A GP, Lothian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

A General Practitioner in the Lothian NHS Board Area - The complainant was concerned that a general practitioner had refused to repeat her prescription for HRT and had misunderstood the cause of a high blood pressure reading.

  • Report no:
    200502787
  • Date:
    July 2006
  • Body:
    Lothian NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health

Lothian NHS Board -
Mr C complained to our office that he was receiving depot injections against his will. On investigation it was found that Mr C was detained for treatment under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and these injections were deemed necessary for medical reasons.

  • Report no:
    TH0062_04
  • Date:
    June 2006
  • Body:
    The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care
  • Sector:
    Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care - This concerned the Care Commission’s handling of a complaint brought by a Mrs A against the Association, and the subsequent issues raised. It also related to the Care Commission’s formal advice to the Association that Mr B, a Care Manager for the Association, was not considered to be a ‘fit person’ to hold a management position under the terms of the Regulation of Care (Requirements as to Care Services)(Scotland) Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) (SSI 2002 114).

  • Report no:
    200502310
  • Date:
    June 2006
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

The City of Edinburgh Council - complaint concerned a member of the public (Mr C in this report) complaining against The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council). The complaint concerned the Council's handling of Mr C's council tax account.

  • Report no:
    200502300
  • Date:
    June 2006
  • Body:
    The City of Edinburgh Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government

The City of Edinburgh Council - The complaint was made by former tenants (Mr and Mrs C) against the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council). The complaint concerned the Council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's termination of their tenancy of a council house, and the matter of rent arrears. The complaint was resolved by the Council during the investigation procedure.

  • Report no:
    200501952
  • Date:
    June 2006
  • Body:
    Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority
  • Sector:
    Local Government

Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority - complaint concerned a man (Mr C) who complained that the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Authority) was not making information on planning applications readily available to the public.