Mid Scotland and Fife

Overview

The complainant raised concerns that her mother should not have been given sedatives, that doctors should have diagnosed a stroke earlier than they did, that there were no nursing observations one night and that the clinical records were poor.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a)  inappropriate giving of sedatives (not upheld);
• (b)  timing of a diagnosis of stroke (not upheld);
• (c)  lack of nursing observations (not upheld); and
• (d)  poor standard of clinical records (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations.

Overview

This complaint concerns dissatisfaction with the handling of a complaint about a decision to refuse an application for payment under the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  two steps of the investigation process were carried out by the same Council employee (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council failed to provide Mr C with details of the changes in legislation that affected his  application (not upheld);
• (c)  the Council failed to address Mr C's complaint that the Disability Living Allowance should not be taken into account in determining the application (upheld); and
• (d)  the Council failed to provide Mr C with the correct information about their complaints procedure (upheld).

Redress and Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Fife Council apologise personally to Mr C for the failings identified in this report.

Fife Council accepts the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complaint from Mr C arose from a dispute over whether a servitude right of access existed for a plot acquired over land purchased in 1986 by Fife Council's predecessor.  Notwithstanding that the dispute arose over a legal issue, there were shortcomings by Fife Council.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints from Mr C that I have investigated are that:

• (a)  Fife Council delayed unduly between 4 March 2002 and October 2003 in applying to the Keeper for a rectification of Mr C's title to the Plot (upheld); and
• (b)  the Council failed to take the legal action as suggested by the Keeper to declare the servitude extinguished (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:

• (i)  apologise to Mr C for the identified delay; and
• (ii)  make a payment of £500 to him.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) resided until November 2005 on the ground floor of a modern block of flats which shared a common access to the rear with an adjacent semi-detached former residential building which had later been converted to offices on the ground and first floors.  He objected in 2003 to proposals for change of use of the ground floor to a children's nursery.  The complaints investigated related to the handling of two planning applications made by Mr C himself which were not validated by South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) and to the handling of a further application for planning consent to convert the upper floor of the building next door as an extension to the children's nursery.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)  the Council failed to deal appropriately with and determine Mr C's applications (not upheld);
• (b)  the Council, in dealing with an application for change of use of the upper floor of the adjacent property, failed to grasp the opportunity to reinforce a policy in their Local Plan for the area (not upheld);
• (c)  Environmental Services when consulted on the application, failed properly to comment on matters of noise and waste removal (not upheld);and
• (d)  the Council as planning authority, failed to have proper regard to the availability of more suitable locations for the nursery (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman has no recommendation to make.

The complainant (Mr C) was aggrieved about the abolition of discounted rate swimming for pensioners when the Council introduced a new leisure access card in early 2004.

The complainant's father died in August 2004. She was concerned that his cancer had not been diagnosed during a hospital admission in April 2004. She also raised a number of concerns about the care provided during his stay in August 2004; that he had been left dirty, his fluid intake was not monitored and he was thirsty and his sanitary needs were not adequately dealt with. She was also aggrieved that he was told he had cancer in a public ward and without a member of his family present.

The central aspect of this complaint is about the care and treatment received by a patient at Monklands Hospital, Airdrie between 14 May 2005 and the patient's unexpected death on 17 May 2005. A concern was also raised about the procedures for arranging a post-mortem and the actions of an out-of-hours doctor.

A complaint was made on behalf of a number of council tenants that the Council had changed their housing allocation policy without proper consultation.

The complainant raised a number of concerns about the way in which her housing allocation had been handled by the Council.

Forth Valley NHS Board
The complainant raised a concern that his Librium medication had been withdrawn suddenly and not reinstated causing him emotional and physical distress.