Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The Complainant (Mr C) had a heart attack in December 2002.  Mr C said that as he was 55 years old at that time, a heavy smoker, and always complaining of chest pain his.  He felt that GP 1 should have sent him to a specialist to check his heart condition.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) inadequate care and treatment led to Mr C having a heart attack. GP 1 did not provide Mr C with adequate care and treatment which resulted in him having a heart attack (not upheld);
• (b) GP 1 inappropriately prescribed venlafaxine (not upheld);
• (c) GP 1 inappropriately suggested on a number of occasions that Mr C take ibuprofen (not upheld);
• (d) GP 1’s record keeping was not of a professional standard because there were significant omissions. (not upheld); and
• (e) GP 1’s record keeping was not of a professional standard because parts of the record were illegible (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that GP 1 takes action to ensure that he produces records that are legible.

GP 1 has accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns on behalf of his clients, Mr and Mrs D.  He alleged that Perth and Kinross Council had provided Mr and Mrs D with inaccurate advice in respect of a housing move.  They believe that the Council incorrectly advised them to stay in their home.  This led to their being taken to court and costs being awarded against them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council advised Mr and Mrs D to stay in their Housing Association home despite the Association advising that they would undertake Court proceedings if they remained (upheld); and
• (b) the Council cancelled the offer of temporary accommodation with the instruction that they must stay put until the Court Order was issued (no finding).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i) make payment of their offer of £800 to Mr and Mrs D; and
• (ii) review the way advice is provided, and recorded within the Housing and Building Services Department.

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

Overview

A company complained about Perth and Kinross Council's handling of their application for a planning agreement and failings in the Council's complaints procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) delay in agreeing a draft Section 75 Agreement (not upheld); and
• (b) failure to comply with their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council issue the Company with the reply that they should have received in response to their step three complaint, which should explain and apologise for the failure to deal with it in accordance with their published complaints procedure.

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

Overview

The complainants claimed that, in refusing to fully fund the care of a family member, Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) were acting in contravention of the legislation on free personal and nursing care and guidance issued by the Scottish Executive.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that no charge for care should have been made and that, in making such a charge, the Council contravened the statutory regulations on the provision of full personal and nursing care and failed to take account of guidance issued by the Scottish Executive (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) considered she had to leave her former Council tenancy and sought advice from a housing officer.  She said she was advised that if she gave up the tenancy and moved in with her parents she would be re-housed within six months.  An offer of re-housing was not made and Mrs C complained to this office that she had been misled.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) Mrs C was misled into giving up her tenancy on the basis that she would be re-housed within six months (not upheld); and
• (b) the Council supplied conflicting information which led her to believe that she had been overlooked for re-housing (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.  However, she expresses the hope that, given Mrs C's difficult current housing circumstances, the Council continue to assist her toward being re-housed at an early date.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that her neighbour (Mr A) had erected a wall with gateposts and a gate on land which was intended as a two metre wide service strip and was aggrieved that  Fife Council (the Council) had not required the removal of the wall and gate.  She claimed the wall impeded access to refuse collection vehicles and presented a danger to pedestrians.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Council failed to take appropriate action with regard to the wall built by her neighbour on the service verge (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that her report be placed before the relevant committee of the Council for them to consider whether the complainant's neighbour should be invited to regularise the position with regard to building standards and apply for planning consent.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) raised a number of concerns that her husband (Mr C) had been inadequately cared for during a stay in Hairmyres Hospital (the Hospital); that the Hospital was not clean; that the out-of-hours Doctor failed to call an ambulance; that her husband was not taken to the nearest treatment centre; and that the subsequent handling of her complaint was inadequate.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the out-of-hours Doctor failed to call an ambulance for Mr C (upheld);
• (b) Mr C was inappropriately taken to a hospital that was not the nearest for treatment and was not transferred there subsequently (not upheld);
• (c) the care given to Mr C in Accident and Emergency at the Hospital was not as outlined in Lanarkshire NHS Board (the Board)'s response to Mrs C (not upheld);
• (d) the cleanliness of the Hospital was not of a good standard (not upheld);
• (e) Mr C was not assisted with feeding at mealtimes in the Hospital (not upheld);
• (f) Mr C's regular medication was not administered correctly while in the Hospital (not upheld);
• (g) the appropriate action was not taken following the diagnosis of Staphylococcus aureus (partially upheld); and
• (h) the response of the Board to Mrs C's complaints was not adequate (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Board:

• (i) introduce a policy regarding ambulance contact by out-of-hours Doctors; and
• (ii) apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to adequately communicate the findings of a swab of Mr C's elbow.

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

Overview

The complaint concerns South Lanarkshire Council's (the Council) proposals to re-build, rather than renovate, a school.  The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were aggrieved that the Council did not re-tender the works when the Council's proposals were changed; that it was unsatisfactory that transportation costs remained to be calculated; and that no explanation was given for the reasons why the site next to an existing primary school was unsuitable.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council did not re-tender the works when their proposals for the School changed from renovate to re-build (not upheld);
• (b) it was unsatisfactory that transportation costs remained to be calculated (not upheld); and
• (c) no explanation was given for the reasons why the site next to an existing primary school was unsuitable (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned the way in which the Council dealt with the complainant's representations about unauthorised development at a neighbouring house.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the Council failed to do enough to encourage the developer to submit retrospective planning and building warrant applications (not upheld);
• (b) the Council failed to consider Mrs C's objections properly and in accordance with their stated procedure (partially upheld);
• (c) although the application was contentious, it was dealt with under delegated powers, contrary to Council guidelines (not upheld); and
• (d) the Council failed to consider this retrospective application in the same way as other, more timely, applications (not upheld).

Redress and Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council apologise to Mrs C for failing to adhere to their stated aim of responding to objections within two working days and to emphasise the importance of this to staff.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) has raised a variety of complaints with this office regarding his tenancy and the handling of his complaint by Paragon Housing Association (the Association).  The three main points of Mr C's complaint have been investigated.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure of the Association to identify that a load-bearing wall was missing (not upheld);
• (b) the manner in which the load-bearing wall was rebuilt (not upheld); and
• (c) handling and responding to complaint (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendations.