Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's consultation process in selecting a site for a replacement of the local primary school. Specifically, she alleged that the council did not reasonably consult in selecting a site for the new school, did not reasonably consider other options for the site, and did not adequately communicate their decision on a preferred site.

Our investigation found that the need for a replacement school was identified in 2008, and that the council's development services had carried out a site option appraisal. In early 2009, the project was brought forward in the council's capital expenditure programme. The sites were later visited and scored by a cross service group of officers (using a site-scoring matrix). A report was presented to councillors in October 2009. In the following four months, meetings took place with the school's parent council and the town's community council, and in June 2010 councillors, council officers, community council members and parents visited the shortlisted sites. A limited public engagement exercise also took place at the local library.

The council made a decision on a preferred site in November 2010 and requested a further report on the business case for the replacement school on that site. This was approved in May 2011. Formal public consultation on the proposal in compliance with the recently introduced School Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 took place in the autumn of 2011.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold any of the three elements of Mrs C's complaint. We found that the consultation on site selection had been appropriate; the other options had been reasonably considered; and the council's reasons for selecting the preferred site were set out in the officers' reports and committee minutes.

Summary

Mr C and Ms C complained that the council failed to provide them with a house that was suitably sound insulated, and failed to take effective action when they reported antisocial behaviour by a number of neighbours.

The council explained that they carried out appropriate tests and could confirm that the house met the relevant standards in terms of sound insulation. They also explained that they had taken action in line with their policies in response to all Mr C and Ms C's reports of antisocial behaviour.

We did not uphold the complaint as, from our review of the evidence, we found that the council carried out appropriate testing on Mr C and Ms C's home which complied with the relevant technical specifications. In addition, we reviewed their actions in response to Mr C and Ms C's complaints of antisocial behaviour and established that each report was investigated and, where corroboration could be obtained, action was indeed taken, in line with their antisocial behaviour policies.

Summary

Mr C reported the possible misuse of a blue badge in a public car park to the council and did not receive a reply. When he reminded the council about this, Mr C received an apology for the delay and an assurance that the matter would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken. When Mr C asked for more information about what action would be taken, he was told that the badge holder would be written to. He was also told that the council were satisfied that the holder legitimately qualified for a badge but that they could not provide Mr C with details of the investigation as this was sensitive information. From the information that was made available, Mr C was not satisfied that the investigation into his complaint had been handled properly, or how the officers who had investigated his complaint about the handling of the matter could have reached this conclusion. Mr C also complained that the council did not meet the timescales for responding to his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the evidence confirmed that the council had investigated Mr C's complaint and taken appropriate action. We were satisfied that their reply was factually correct and set out the position as clearly as was possible, given that the information which could be released to him was limited as it related to personal information about a third party. This meant the council could not give him all the information he wanted. Finally we found that, although there was a delay in acknowledging Mr C's initial contact about the matter, the council had responded to later correspondence in accordance with their service standards.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said they were told in 2010 that their home was to be demolished as part of a regeneration programme and they would be allocated a new-build property. In March/April 2011, the construction company building the new homes went bankrupt and the building site was sealed. Mr and Mrs C said that since then they had been misled as to when they would be re-housed. They also said that they had not been offered suitable temporary accommodation.

We did not uphold their complaints. Our investigation found that the original contractor for the project went into administration in early 2011 which meant that the housing association had to put the contract out to tender again. It was not until April 2012 that a new contractor was appointed. Throughout that period, and up to the date of our investigation, the housing association had regularly written to Mr and Mrs C updating them on the situation. The letters all made clear that the housing association would be back in touch once they had further information, and invited Mr and Mrs C to contact them if they had any questions. We also found that, wherever possible, the housing association gave provisional dates for entry in terms of the information they had at the time.

It was also clear that the housing association told Mr and Mrs C that they could offer temporary accommodation, but that Mr and Mrs C had declined this on the grounds that it would not be practical to move into such accommodation and did not want to be inconvenienced by doing so. There was no evidence to suggest they were offered a specific property that they deemed to be unsuitable.

Summary

Mr C, a housing association tenant, had told the association that he was concerned about the quality of the chimney sweeping undertaken by a contractor on the association's behalf. As a result, a technical inspector from the association accompanied the contractors when Mr C's chimneys were swept.

Mr C complained that this sweep of his chimneys was not carried out to a reasonable safety standard, and that a further test related to his chimneys carried out on the same day had not been undertaken properly. The association investigated Mr C's complaints. They advised that the technical inspector had no concerns about the way the contractors had carried out their tasks but, in recognition of Mr C's concerns, agreed that his sweeps would in future be undertaken top down, weather conditions permitting.

Mr C remained dissatisfied and raised his concerns with us. We decided that we could not consider Mr C's specific complaint to us about the test undertaken at his property, as he had not yet made that properly to the association. On the other matter, we did not uphold his complaint. Our investigation found that the association had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the works carried out on their behalf were of a reasonable safety standard, given the view of the technical inspector and the relevant accreditations of the contractor.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to include a leaflet of conditions when providing an application form for permission to erect a garden shed. Mr and Mrs C completed the form, then went ahead and bought a shed. However, their application was refused as the proposed shed was larger than the permitted size. After complaining to the association about the lack of information about the conditions, Mr and Mrs C complained to us. They also complained that the association failed to investigate Mr C's allegations that other tenants already had oversized sheds.

Our investigation found that it was not possible to say for sure whether a copy of the conditions leaflet was enclosed with the application form. However, Mr C's support worker had been told that a shed should not be built until permission to do so was given. The form that Mr C completed also explained this and asked him, in signing it, to say that he had read and understood the conditions. We also noted that Mr and Mrs C chose to buy the shed before they had the necessary permission. We found it entirely reasonable that the association applied their own policies in terms of the permitted size of garden sheds.

We were satisfied that Mr and Mrs C were told that they should not construct a shed until permission was granted. As a result of this, and as we did not find any evidence that showed that Mr C had reported other tenants with sheds above the permitted size to the housing association, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C suffered a hand injury while he was in prison. He was treated in hospital the day he was injured, when an x-ray showed he had a metacarpal fracture (an injury to one of the small bones in the hand). The hand was strapped up, and he was seen again around a week later, when another x-ray showed the position of the fracture to be acceptable. The doctor noted that Mr C's hand should remain in strapping until the next review appointment. The next month, Mr C complained to the board that his treatment had been inappropriate. He was concerned that strapping rather than a cast was used, and said that he remained in a great deal of pain. He said that his hand was swollen and becoming deformed, with the bone sticking out. Mr C had further appointments over the next three months, and after a CT scan was taken, a hamate fracture (an injury to a small bone on the outside of the wrist) was identified in addition to the metacarpal fracture. He underwent steroid injections for pain management, and was considering surgery.

After taking independent medical advice, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the management of his injury had been appropriate. We found that the use of strapping to allow him to continue to move his hand, rather than a plaster cast, was appropriate for this type of injury. We also found that the hamate fracture could not be detected easily from the initial x-rays due to its position. We found that the shape of Mr C's hand was not due to the bone sticking out, but rather due to the formation of callus (thickened skin) as the injury healed. We also found that surgery at an earlier stage would not have been appropriate because time had to be allowed for healing before surgery could be carried out. We did not uphold the complaint, although we did note some minor issues in relation to the board's response to Mr C's complaint, which we drew to their attention.

Summary

Mr C visited a dentist several times in the summer of 2011 where he had seven teeth removed and two fillings. Around three months later, Mr C was admitted to hospital suffering from fever and was subsequently diagnosed with sub-acute bacterial endocarditis (a chronic bacterial infection of the valves of the heart) and underwent surgery.

Mr C complained that the dentist failed to prescribe him antibiotics despite Mr C having told him that he felt feverish after the first three teeth were extracted. Mr C said that a hospital doctor had commented that patients undergoing any form of invasive dental treatment should be administered antibiotics.

We noted that the dentist treated Mr C for infected sockets in June 2011 by washing them out with an antiseptic solution and packing them with a dressing. This form of treatment is in line with guidance issued by the Faculty of General Dental Practice. National guidance issued by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommended that antibiotics were only to be given routinely to a small minority of patients undergoing dental treatment who have a certain heart defect. As Mr C had no previous medical history, such as a heart condition, that would require administering antibiotics before or after the tooth extractions, we considered that the dentist acted appropriately and in line with the national guidelines.

Mr C's dental records showed that he was given antibiotics in July 2011 but there was no reason given as to why these were prescribed. The dentist later explained that they were given because infection of the sockets had persisted, which we considered reasonable.

Mr C's hospital records showed that the endocarditis was caused by Strep Viridans (a bacteria found in the mouth and throat of most people). The bacteria can enter the bloodstream following a dental extraction but is usually killed by the body's immune system in a healthy person. It is normally only a problem for those with a compromised immune system or pre-existing heart defect, neither of which Mr C had at this time. We considered that it was highly likely that Mr C was infected by the bacteria following the dental extractions and that, for unknown reasons, his immune system was unable to respond to the bacteria, resulting in his endocarditis. However, this did not mean that the dental extraction was carried out incorrectly, nor that he should have been given antibiotics.

Summary

At a consultation with her GP, Mrs C said she had swollen ankles. Her GP advised her to stop taking her medication for high blood pressure, which she did. Mrs C was admitted to hospital with chest pain two months after the consultation with her GP and died several hours later. Over time, Mrs C's husband (Mr C) became concerned about a possible link between the medication being stopped and his wife's death.

Mr C complained that the GP's advice was not properly considered or reasonable. He also complained that the practice did not take reasonable steps to monitor his wife's health following their advice that she should stop taking the medication prescribed for high blood pressure.

We found, from looking at the evidence and taking advice from one of our medical advisers, that ankle swelling was a common side effect of the blood pressure medication Mrs C had been taking and, given Mrs C's symptoms, the advice to stop taking blood pressure medication was reasonable. We also found that blood tests were organised after the consultation with the GP, but that there was no clear instruction for a follow-up check of blood pressure. However, blood pressure was monitored at other appointments with staff at the practice, and was within normal limits. It was not entirely clear from the records that this was part of a systematic plan of care that followed from the decision to discontinue the medication. Therefore, we asked the practice to reflect on follow-up arrangements made for patients when medications are discontinued, and to record specific plans for follow-up within the records. However, overall, we found that there was evidence that the practice took reasonable steps to monitor Mrs C's health and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr A's dentist gave him a filling in autumn 2011. This was a very large restoration and Mr A was treated for minor pain over the next few weeks. In early 2012 he returned to the practice with further pain associated with the tooth. The practice told him that the dentist who treated him had left, and had in fact practiced there under his own NHS contract. They offered treatment but told Mr A that they would charge for this. Mr A recalled that his previous dentist had told him that any follow-up treatment required on the tooth would be free of charge, and declined the offer of paid treatment. He returned to the practice the next month and again said that he would only consent to treatment if it was provided free of charge. He refused to sign forms consenting to paid treatment or a medical history form.

Mr A complained about this to the practice, who explained their position and advised that they had taken steps to remove him from their treatment list on the basis that Mr A had lost confidence in them.

Ms C, who is an advice worker, wrote to the local health board on Mr A's behalf and this was passed to the practice for a response. The practice repeated the information they had given Mr A about his treatment and his removal from their practice list. They also offered him the cost of the treatment he had experienced problems with, but noted this was not the full amount he had paid at that time, as that had included treatment for another matter.

Mr A remained dissatisfied and Ms C complained to us on his behalf. We did not, however, uphold the complaint as we decided that there was no evidence of service failure. This was because the practice were correct in saying that the responsibility for treatment lay with the dentist who provided it and not themselves, now that he had left the practice.