West of Scotland

Overview

The complainants (Mrs C and Ms B) raised a number of concerns regarding the handling of their complaint by East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council). The complaint submitted to the Council related to care services provided to Mrs C's parents.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to handle the complaint made by Mrs C and Ms B properly (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) reflect on how they handled this complaint and the specific failings identified in this report and remind staff of the importance of communicating effectively on such matters; and
• (ii) apologise to Mrs C and Ms B for failing to make it clear to them that the Complaint Review Committee meeting was not being formally minuted and for failing to inform Mrs C that not all of her comments would be submitted to the Social Services Committee.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were tenants of Ark Housing Association (the Association). They complained that their property sustained damage and that the surrounding area was excessively disrupted by renovation work being carried out, by the Association, on the neighbouring apartments. Whilst the Association took action to repair the damage caused by the works, Mr and Mrs C complained that the repairs were not completed in good time and that they were required to remain in a property that was unsuitable for their habitation.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Association failed to carry out remedial work to Mr and Mrs C's property in good time following damage caused by their contractors (upheld); and
• (b) the Association's communication was poor (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association:

• (i) refund 10% of Mr and Mrs C's rent payments over the 14 month period, where external remedial works remained outstanding, between March 2007 and May 2008;
• (ii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the disruption and inconvenience caused by the reconfiguration works neighbouring their home; and
• (iii) review Mr and Mrs C’s case with a view to identifying any procedures that could be improved to avoid similar problems for other tenants in the future.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) has a son (Child C) with special educational needs, who attends a secondary school (the School) in the area of West Lothian Council (the Council). Mr C raised concerns over the way the Council's Education Department handled his grievance with the School about adjusting Child C's second year timetable, and the Chief Executive's handling of his formal complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council's:

• (a) Education Department did not make an appropriate intervention to resolve a problem which had arisen with the School over Child C's timetable choices (not upheld);
• (b) Education Department failed to direct Mr C to his entitlement to mediation services (partially upheld); and
• (c) Chief Executive did not carry out an appropriate investigation before responding to Mr C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the Education Department not referring to the procedures for accessing the Mediation Service in June 2006; for not expediting the mediation requested by Mr C on 23 August 2006; and for the inadequacies in their investigation of, and response to Mr C's concerns; and
• (ii) review Council staff's awareness of the Mediation Service and the availability of the related leaflet.

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, raised a number of concerns with West Dunbartonshire Council (the Council)’s Social Work Department about the care being provided by their agents to his uncle. Mr C pursued this complaint through the Council's complaints procedure and, as he remained unhappy, on 23 November 2007, he requested that a Social Work Complaints Review Committee (the CRC) hear his complaint. The CRC was not held until 27 October 2008.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council delayed unreasonably in holding a CRC (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this report;
• (ii) review their procedures to ensure that the CRC membership is kept up to date at all times;
• (iii) ensure that, in future, any extension to the time limits, as set out in the Directions, is agreed by the complainant(s); and
• (iv) consider, as part of their review of procedures, whether there is a need for specific literature to be provided to Social Work complainants on the complaints procedure. The Council have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) complained about the transport arrangements for his wife (Mrs C) after her feeding tube blocked and she required hospital treatment to unblock it. He also complained about the care and treatment she received at Gilbert Bain Hospital, Shetland (Hospital 1).

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) there was a delay in the arrival of the ambulance and when it arrived it could not take Mrs C in a powered wheelchair (upheld to the extent that the ambulance could have been dispatched more quickly and the delay avoided had the crew been advised when the request for the ambulance arrived);
• (b) no arrangements were made to take Mrs C home after her attendance at Accident and Emergency at Hospital 1 (upheld);
• (c) Mrs C had no nutrition or fluids for 20 hours (upheld);
• (d) Mrs C was sent to the wrong address in a taxi (upheld); and
• (e) the initial travel arrangements made for Mrs C to attend a hospital outwith the Shetland NHS Board area were unreasonable (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Scottish Ambulance Service:

• (i) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in this paragraphs 5 to 12 of this report; and
• (ii) demonstrate that, through providing more tailored options for requesting physicians, the response and appropriateness of that response has improved.

The Ombudsman recommends that Shetland NHS Board:

• (iii) apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in paragraphs 18 to 29 of this report;
• (iv) send him a copy of the results of the audit of record keeping in the Accident and Emergency department and any action taken to improve practice; and
• (v) audit the Patient Travel Service to ensure that they are now requesting sufficient information to allow them to make appropriate arrangements for all patients in the Board area who require to travel.

Both the Scottish Ambulance Service and Shetland NHS Board have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns about the services relating to travel provided to her daughter by her GP practice (the Practice).

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Practice failed to provide services relating to travel in accordance with the relevant regulations from February 2008 to date (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Practice:

• (i) ceases immediately its policy for charging for all travel advice;
• (ii) as far as possible, refunds patients it has charged wrongly; and
• (iii) amends its policy in light of the regulations.

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

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised concerns when The City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) and their collection agents pursued him for alleged substantial council tax arrears relating to three former addresses which dated back to 1994. He was concerned at the amount of those arrears and differences between the Council and their collection agents as to how much he allegedly owed.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Council:

• (a) have failed since March 2007 to provide Mr C with an accurate and comprehensive statement of his indebtedness for council tax (upheld); and
• (b) failed to act on Mr C's assertions that his indebtedness for council tax for certain years has been overstated by them (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant and his wife (Mr and Mrs C) moved house and relocated their sports tour package business to a town in Fife in February 2004. Shortly thereafter neighbours complained about associated activities and Fife Council (the Council) issued a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) and, after the matter was reported to the Council's Development Committee (the Committee), a Planning Enforcement Notice (PEN). Mr C appealed against the PEN to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (SEIRU) and that appeal was heard before a reporter (Reporter 2) at a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) in June 2005. Reporter 2's decision was issued on 25 August 2005. Reporter 2 dismissed the appeal, confirmed the PEN subject to a number of amendments and, in a separate determination, refused an application on Mr C's behalf for expenses.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) poor and/or incorrect advice was given by Council officers to Mr C (not upheld);
• (b) the Council issued the PCN and subsequently the PEN on the basis of insufficient evidence (partially upheld to the extent of the inadequacy of the report presented to the Committee);
• (c) there was poor and inconsistent handling of matters by the Council and a failure to follow appropriate procedures (not upheld);
• (d) the SEIRU's initial appointment of a reporter (Reporter 1) did not follow relevant guidance on conflict of interest (upheld);
• (e) the PLI and related activity was handled poorly (partially upheld to the extent that not all letters were shared); and
• (f) Reporter 2, in determining the appeal, did not adequately justify his decisions by demonstrating they were based on the available evidence (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council review the scope of information to be presented to the Committee on planning contravention when seeking authorisation to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action; and The Ombudsman recommends that DPEA remind their staff and panel of reporters of the need to consider whether particular appointments may be perceived as involving a conflict of interest, and that DPEA take account of ethical standards in public life in relation to such appointments.

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

Overview

The complainant Ms C was concerned that Edinburgh's Telford College (the College) did not provide her with appropriate support while she was a student in 2006/2007. In particular, Ms C said that tutorial provision was inadequate; she was unhappy with circumstances surrounding her audition for a higher-level course; and the way she had been told she was not successful in this application. Ms C was also unhappy with the way the College dealt with her subsequent complaint.

 Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the College did not provide Ms C with appropriate support (partially upheld, to the extent that information provided to students was inaccurate);
• (b) the College did not deal appropriately with Ms C's audition process and communication about this (partially upheld, to the extent that there was inconsistency in the way students were informed about the outcome of their auditions); and
• (c) the College mishandled their response to Ms C's complaint (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the College:

• (i) ensure the information provided to students about tutorials and the role of the Course Tutor is in line with current practice;
• (ii) apologise to Ms C for the failure to ensure that the course handbook explained clearly the role of the Course Tutor for her course;
• (iii) review their policy surrounding the methods used to inform applicants of the results of auditions;
• (iv) apologise to Ms C for the inconsistency which occurred in the way applicants were informed; and
• (v) review the support and guidance given to staff investigating complaints;
• (vi) apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in their handling of her complaint.

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

Overview

The complainant (Ms C) relocated from Renfrewshire to North Lanarkshire in October 2006. She complained that Renfrewshire Council (Council 1) failed to follow their own stated procedures when transferring her social work case file to North Lanarkshire Council (Council 2). Ms C felt that Council 1 delayed the transfer process unnecessarily and failed to provide complete information to Council 2, disrupting her transition into her new area.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that Council 1 failed to carry out Ms C's social work case transfer in:

• (a) accordance with their own procedures (upheld); and
• (b) a timely manner (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Council 1:

• (i) introduce procedures to ensure that any requests for action on a service user's case file are proactively pursued to completion; and
• (ii) formally apologise to Ms C for the anxiety and disruption caused by their handling of her social work case transfer.

Council 1 have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.