West of Scotland

Overview
The complainant (Ms C) bought her present flat in a tenement in Edinburgh in September 2004. She raised a number of concerns about the issue and administration of statutory notices that were served on owners in June 2005 by The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) under subsection 24(1) of the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. She was aggrieved that as an owner, the notices of June 2005 had not been served on her and that she was not alerted to the scale of her liability until September 2008.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to inform Ms C as a co-owner of the service of statutory notices on 24 June 2005 (upheld);
• (b) and their agents failed to update Ms C on the progress of the works (upheld); and
• (c) delayed in serving the accounts for the works until September 2008 and failed to give Ms C appropriate opportunity to make financial arrangements (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) review their procedures in updating their database on property ownership to ensure that the database is current; and (ii) consider whether, given their failures to issue Ms C with the statutory notice and to directly update her, there is scope for them to commute part of their administration charge in respect of the contract.

The Council informed the Ombudsman that they accepted the findings in the report, and had set in place action in implementation of the recommendations including the waiving of a third of their administration charge.

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised his concerns that his optometrist (Optometrist 1) failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to him at his visit on 8 January 2008. Mr C considers that the prescription he was given was significantly different to that which should have been prescribed.

Specific complaint and conclusion
The complaint which has been investigated is that Optometrist 1 failed to provide reasonable care and treatment to Mr C at his visit of 8 January 2008 (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that Optometrist 1:

• (i) provide patients with a warning (which should be recorded on their record cards) that a reduced power prescription may require some adjustment;
• (ii) review the way he communicates the possible implications of reducing a myopic prescription with a patient and records this communication in the clinical records; and
• (iii) review the way he operates his formal complaints procedure when providing NHS services to ensure that complaints are considered in line with the NHS complaints guidance. Optometrist 1 has viewed a draft of this report.

He has made clear that he does not accept the conclusion in the report but has accepted the recommendations and will act on them.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns about The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s administration of the accounts for works done under two statutory notices served on the owners of the building in which his flat is situated.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council unfairly altered to Mr C's detriment the list of recipients for works instructed by the Council as a result of statutory notices served by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

Overview

The complainants (Mr C and Ms D) purchased a commercial property on the ground floor of a tenement block in Edinburgh in the autumn of 2004. In the subsequent three and a half years, they received no communication from The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council). On 7 April 2008 they received accounts from the Council for nearly £7,600 in respect of works instructed under notices issued by the Council under the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Mr C and Ms D raised a number of concerns about the Council's handling of the matter.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) failed to serve Mr C and Ms D as part owners of the tenement with statutory notices issued on 13 October 2004 (not upheld);
• (b) failed to update their records on ownership and keep Mr C and Ms D informed of progress on the contract (upheld); and
• (c) failed to respond sympathetically to Mr C and Ms D's request to be given sufficient time to pay accounts for nearly £7,600 of which they had no prior forewarning (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:

• (i) the statutory notice intimation and relevant subsequent correspondence include an appropriate statement for the recipient to contact the Council to alert them to any change in ownership;
• (ii) in the case of commercial properties included in statutory notices, Corporate Property and Contingency Planning institute a practice of checking with the Scottish Assessors Association website to ascertain whether there has been a pertinent recent change of ownership which would require them to update their ownership records; and
• (iii) in the light of the failure to communicate with Mr C and Ms D and update them, the Council consider whether it is appropriate to levy the full administration charge.

The Council have accepted the recommendations and have acted on them accordingly.

Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns regarding the response of West Lothian Council (the Council) to problems that she had reported with regard to her home.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed satisfactorily to address persistent problems of water ingress and dampness in the house (not upheld);
(b) the Council failed to take the opportunity to carry out necessary repairs when the family temporarily vacated the property (partially upheld to the extent that the Council did not immediately let Mrs C know that repairs could not be undertaken when the family were absent);
(c) although dehumidifiers were supplied by the Council to dry out the house, Mrs C was not reimbursed for additional electricity consumed (partially upheld); and
(d) Council workmen attending to carry out repairs, damaged Mrs C's flooring and, thereafter, misrepresented the extent of that damage to the Council's insurers (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
(i) revisit the repairs history of the particular house in comparison with similar houses in the immediate vicinity to establish whether there are recurrent problems;
(ii) review the arrangements for carrying out repairs where there is a risk to the health of a tenant with a known medical condition; and
(iii) review the adequacy of the advice given on the Council?s policy with regard to reimbursement when they supply dehumidifiers to tenants.

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

Overview
The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns regarding the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council)'s administration of housing benefit for one of his tenants (the Tenant). He complained that the Council failed to properly investigate the Tenant's personal circumstances, or follow the correct procedures, when paying housing benefit, resulting in financial loss for Mr C.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to follow their own, and the Department for Work and Pensions, guidance when administering the Tenant's housing benefit account (upheld);
(b) the Council failed to adequately investigate the Tenant's personal circumstances before deciding to pay housing benefit to the Tenant (upheld); and
(c) the Council's communication was poor (upheld).

Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
(i) pay any outstanding amounts to cover rent arrears for the period 20 November 2006 to 23 September 2007 to Mr C in one single payment;
(ii) remind their staff of their procedures for advising interested parties of decisions made in relation to Local Housing Allowance accounts; and
(iii) apologise to Mr C for failings identified in this report.

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

Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) complained about the manner in which Community Charge was recovered by Midlothian Council (the Council). They disputed an outstanding amount the Council indicated as having been owed by Mrs C, and they did not believe the Council had a right to recover the debt through an internal data matching scheme without, in their view, letting them have prior notice of the debt before deferring to this measure.

Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
(a) the Council failed to take steps to recover the debt until it was highlighted in an employee initiative scheme (not upheld);
(b) the Council was unable to provide contemporaneous evidence of the outstanding debt (not upheld);
(c) the Council pursued the debt in an unreasonable manner (not upheld); and
(d) the Council's arrestment procedure commenced before the complaints procedure was fully exhausted (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman recommends the Council notifies complainants that action in relation to the arrestment of wages for the recovery of debt may continue during the handling of the complaint; to avoid the risk of misunderstandings in future cases.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the dental treatment she received from her dentist (the Dentist) on 25 January 2008, which led to her attending her local hospital in great pain and with a swollen face. Mrs C's care was then taken over by a consultant oral and maxillofacial surgeon who told her that the numbness in her face could take up to six weeks to heal or it could be permanent.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that, on 25 January 2008, the Dentist provided Mrs C with an inadequate level of treatment (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Dentist:

• (i) apologises to Mrs C for the failings identified in this report; and
• (ii) reflects on the Adviser's comments in regard to the standard of radiographs, working length calculation and record-keeping.

The Dentist has accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s 19-year-old son had a dental operation at St John's Hospital (the Hospital) in the area of Lothian NHS Board (the Board). His learning disability meant he did not have the mental capacity to make his own decisions about treatment or consent, nor to understand much of what was happening to him at the Hospital. Mrs C complained that she did not have the chance to withhold her consent to all the work being done at one session because she considered that the large volume of work should have been spread across more than one surgical session. She said that she had not been told before the operation of the possibility of so much work. She added that the amount of work done at the one session had caused her son such distress that, amongst other things, he had been chewing his lip, which she said had become an open, infected, sore.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that informed consent to the operation was not properly sought (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) apologise to Mrs C for the failure to seek informed consent;
• (ii) satisfy themselves that relevant administrators and healthcare professionals at the Board have an appropriate knowledge and understanding of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, its Code of Practice and other relevant guidance;
• (iii) share lessons learnt from this case across their hospitals and disciplines;
• (iv) use the events of this case as part of their induction and other training programmes about consent and about communication with carers etc who have a legal say in decisions about the medical treatment of an adult with incapacity;
• (v) ensure that the Board's Consent Policy, in relation to obtaining consent in writing, is followed;
• (vi) advise clinicians across the Board's hospitals that recording only key points of consent discussions will not be sufficient in some cases; and
• (vii) consider revising their consent form in respect of adults with incapacity.

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) complained on behalf of a local action group (the Action Group) about the way in which Renfrewshire Council (the Council) handled a planning application and granted permission for a security fence on part of a former Royal Ordnance Factory site (the ROF site).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) planning permission was granted contrary to an undertaking given to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee and the Examination in Public (the EiP) (partially upheld, to the extent that the Council did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application);
• (b) there was no need for a security fence (no finding);
• (c) the granting of planning permission prejudices the consideration of objections to the other applications pending (not upheld);
• (d) permission was granted, incorrectly, under delegated powers (not upheld);
• (e) the Council erred in accepting the application, which Ms C claimed should have had an accompanying environmental statement or information about contamination (not upheld); and
• (f) the Council's procedures for delegated powers were inadequate, in that the Director of Planning and Transport was not required to publish his delegated report in advance (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to the Action Group that they did not communicate clearly to the EiP their intentions with regard to the security fence application.

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