SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Ms A) about the partnership's decision to discharge Ms A from hospital based care and into a care home. We took independent medical advice. We found that the partnership had followed Scottish Government guidance in both reaching their decision, and in processing Mr C's appeal of that decision. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707564 as a PDF (23.49 KB) Updated: April 17, 2019

Mrs C was granted planning permission to create an extension to her home for her father (Mr A) after he was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. Mr A sold his own house and the money raised was transferred to Mrs C to fund the extension works. Mr A's illness later worsened and he experienced an emergency detention in hospital and was later discharged to a care home. The council said that the value of the capital from the sale of Mr A's house should be treated as notional capital in his financial assessment which meant that he was to be regarded as self funding for his care home accommodation. Mrs C disputed the decision but the council's original decision was upheld. Mrs C complained that not all relevant facts had been taken into account by the council and as a result Mr A was considered to have deliberately deprived himself of capital. She also complained that the council had not provided her with a clear reasoned explanation of their decision in terms of the Scottish Government Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidance (CRAG). It is not within our power to review the decision or overturn it. We can only look to see whether the decision taken was on reasonable grounds, taking all the relevant facts into account, in line with relevant guidance. We found that the council had considered all the information Mrs C provided, made reference to CRAG and obtained legal advice. We found no evidence of failures in the council's decision making and, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. However, we did find that the council had not provided a reasonable explanation to Mrs C for how they reached their decision. We upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Mr C complained about the way that the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) investigated an issue regarding debts in his Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS - statutory debt management scheme introduced by the Scottish Government) Debt Payment Programme (DPP - a programme that allows a debtor to pay off their debt over an extended period of time) after one of his debts was written off by the creditor. Having investigated this matter, the AIB established that the incorrect debt had been removed from Mr C's debt payment plan. The AIB said that inaccurate information in the DAS application had contributed to this error. The AIB apologised to Mr C for the error and offered reassurance that the removal of the wrong debt had not been of detriment to him. We found that there was limited documentation of the initial investigation carried out once the AIB were informed of an issue with one of the debts. We were unable to find satisfactory evidence to support the AIB's conclusion that the error had not been detrimental to Mr C. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also raised concern that the AIB did not provide a full response to his complaint. We found that the AIB had not informed Mr C whether he had overpaid his debt payment programme despite this being a point he raised concern about. We also found that the AIB's complaint response indicated to Mr C that it was their intention to make a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regarding issues experienced with one of the creditors. The AIB acknowledged that when it subsequently became apparent that this would not be possible, they should have updated Mr C. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter (Miss A), who suffers from quadriplegic cerebral palsy (a condition which results in severe or complete loss of motor function in all four limbs) and other complex additional support needs. Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably withdrew Miss A's physiotherapy. We took independent advice from a physiotherapist. We found that it could have been deemed appropriate for the board to stop Miss A's physiotherapy. However, we found that this was done without any appropriate assessment documented in the notes and without any documented consultation and discussion with Mrs C and her husband (Mr C). This is contrary to the Scottish Government Getting it Right for Every Child guidance. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C also complained that, when asked, the board unreasonably failed to show her that their decision to withdraw Miss A's physiotherapy was based on clinical need. We noted that, while the board referred to the progress Miss A had made, they did not explain why improvement in Miss A's physical abilities affected her need for physiotherapy. In view of this, it was unclear why the specific physiotherapy was withdrawn. There was also a delay in the board providing this complaint response to Mrs C. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mrs C also complained that the board unreasonably failed to carry out a paediatric physiotherapy review of Miss A's physiotherapy requirements, as had been agreed at a meeting with Mrs C and Mr C. We were unable to confirm if a review took place at the time the board said that it would. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Ms C complained that the Scottish Government failed to respond to her complaint within a reasonable timeframe. Ms C came to us after waiting a number of months for a response to her complaint. We contacted the Scottish Government five times over the course of four months to request an update on Ms C's complaint. When they failed to provide Ms C with a response within the timeframe we set, we accepted a complaint from Ms C about the Scottish Government's handling of her complaint. During the course of our investigation, the Scottish Government replied to Ms C's complaint. We found that they had failed to refer Ms C to us at the the end of their complaints process and failed to provide us with information we requested by the deadline set. We considered that the Scottish Government failed to respond to Ms C's complaint within a reasonable timeframe and upheld her complaint.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application which proposed the erection of a new house directly opposite his own. Mr C told us that this application should not have been approved as the council's Local Development Plan (LDP) only allowed for one new house to be built in rural hamlets the size of his during every five year plan period, but this was the third application that had been approved in less than 18 months. In response to his objection and complaint, the council had explained that the reason this had occurred was because one LDP had expired at the end of the year, but the new five year LDP could not be approved until a few months into the new year, due to a Scottish Government review. They said that this meant that the interim period had to be considered a second term of the older LDP, with its own allowance for rural expansion. We took independent advice from a planning adviser, who told us that the council's interpretation of the legislation was correct and, therefore, their approach was reasonable. As such, we did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained that the council had not taken account of an objection he made regarding the accuracy of the plans. He said that the levels shown on the plans were not consistent with the gradient of the site. On investigation, we found that Mr C had objected about this issue seperately from his original objection, and outwith the timescale for consultation. As such, the council did not accept it as a valid objection. However, they received a similar objection from another party, so this matter was considered during the process. They also treated Mr C's objection as a planning enforcement matter and attended the site to visually compare the levels against the gradient. Having done so, they concluded that the plans were a reasonable representation of the plot. We concluded that the council's actions in this respect had been reasonable and we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading

Mrs C complained about the council's policy on kinship care allowances. She and her husband are kinship carers for their granddaughter and previously obtained a residency order. The council pays approved/formal kinship carers the same additional four week holiday allowance that is paid to foster carers. However, they do not pay this to previously approved/informal kinship carers, which is the category that Mrs C falls into. Mrs C feels that a council committee report proves that she should be paid the four week allowance, as it states that approved/informal kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence order (now known as a kinship care order). We made a number of enquiries to both the council and the Scottish Government. Although we were not satisfied by the council's initial response, they eventually provided a more robust justification for why they reached their decision within the existing legal framework. The Scottish Government also provided a far clearer explanation of their intentions than was contained in the letter detailing the funding agreement which led to the changes to kinship care allowances. They stated that the funding agreement only applied to regular weekly allowances and was intended to bring allowances for eligible kinship carers in line with foster carers. Therefore, local authorities had discretion to make additional payments as they saw fit. In addition to this, we saw no evidence to support the statement in the council's committee report which stated that kinship carers should not be disadvantaged by obtaining a residence or kinship care order. On this basis, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. However, we did provide feedback to the Scottish Government as they are currently carrying out a national review into kinship and foster care payment arrangements. Related reading View Decision Report 201705014 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mrs C complained that the board unreasonably discharged her from a community mental health team. She believed that she was discharged due to the absence of her usual community psychiatric nurse (CPN), who had been off work for a number of months at the time of discharge. Mrs C said that she had not been regularly seen or supported during this absence, only receiving two appointments, the focus of which were her discharge from services. While complaining to the board, she also became aware that her previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder (a mental health condition marked by alternating periods of elation and depression) had been changed to a possible diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD, a disorder of mood and how a person interacts with others). Mrs C complained that she had never been informed of this change and that the board failed to communicate with her appropriately. We took independent advice from a CPN. We found no evidence to suggest that Mrs C's discharge was related to staffing issues. Prior to the CPN's absence, she had a clear care plan in place and was being seen around every two weeks. One of the aims of the plan was to explore a possible alternative diagnosis of BPD. There was also recorded agreement that any future discharge would be clearly planned in advance and communicated, to ensure that this happened in a supportive manner. We considered that the overall decison to discharge Mrs C was reasonable. However, the adviser explained that, under Scottish Government guidance, the board should have implemented an Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) which would define the care and support offered to people with personality disorders. We noted that it did not appear that the board had an ICP in place for BPD. We also found that there was a lack of continuity in the support provided to Mrs  C once her CPN was absent. Prior to discharge, Mrs C had been without support for around four months, despite her care plan stipulating that she woul

Mr C, an MSP's caseworker, complained on behalf of a constituent (Mr A) that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise. Mr A said that renovation works being carried out by his next door neighbour were causing him severe disruption. The council had initially served an abatement notice, setting out legal time restrictions for the hours the works could be carried out. However, Mr A said that he had repeatedly reported that works were ongoing outwith the specified hours and that the council had been unable to attend to witness the noise and enforce the notice. By the time that the council were able to attend out-of-hours, the works were mostly complete, with remaining works taking place during the specified hours. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council had no formal policy or procedure relating to the investigation of noise and enforcement of abatement notices. The council said that a policy would not cover the complexity of noise complaints and would restrict their staff from using their professional judgement. The adviser noted that Scottish Government guidance suggests that local authorities should have clear policies and procedures in place to govern the investigation of noise nuisance. The guidance also suggested that those policies and procedures should set out clear timescales for response, along with details for out-of-hours provision. We considered that the council's reason for not having these policies and procedures was unreasonable. We also found that the council had taken too long to attend and investigate Mr A's ongoing reports of noise, both during and outwith normal working hours. Finally, we noted that the were a number of documents missing including records of phone calls made by Mr A and details of the site visits the council did carry out. For these reasons, we considered that the council failed to appropriately investigate Mr A's reports of noise and uphel

Mr C's complaint concerns an application he made to the government's Rural Payments and Inspections Division for payments under the Basic Payment Scheme (a European Union farming subsidy scheme). Mr C told us that he had inadvertently failed to apply for a top up he was entitled to because he found the government's guidance on applications to be misleading. He had attempted to appeal this decision but the government refused to consider his appeal, as they did not consider they had made a relevant decision under The Rural Payments (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. In response to Mr C's complaint, the government accepted that the section of the guidance Mr C had referred to was insufficiently detailed, as it did not mention the top ups in question, but they did not consider it to be inaccurate or misleading. On reviewing the guidance in place at the time Mr C made his application, we agreed with the government's position. The statement in question failed to mention the top ups, as Mr C had explained. However, this was only part of the introduction to what was extensive guidance on a complex system. When read in full, we considered the guidance clearly explained the top ups and how to apply for these. We also considered the government's position on Mr C's appeal to be reasonable, although stressed that we could not definitively conclude that it was correct in law, as this was something that could only be confirmed by the courts. For this reason, we did not uphold these complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201609429 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C bought a second property with a view to renovating it and eventually moving into it. It took Mr C some time to bring the property up to habitable standards, and he moved into the property two and half years after buying it. When he moved in, he received a notification from the council about a council tax levy that was imposed on him from seven months earlier. Mr C complained to the council that they failed to inform him of this levy in writing at that time. He also believed the legislation from the Scottish Government gave local authorities flexibility and discretion when imposing the levy. We asked the council if the policy to impose a council tax levy on unoccupied properties was a blanket decision and whether they considered that they were not using their discretion when they could have been. The council confirmed that it was a blanket decision as they wanted to treat all home owners equally, and therefore it was not unreasonable to not consider Mr C's individual circumstances. Following our investigation, the council accepted that they failed to take the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance into account when they originally drafted their policy. However, we also found that the council were correct in how they interpreted the relevant regulations and that they had the discretion to impose the levy on all cases and not take into account individual circumstances. Our investigation found that the Scottish Government's 2015 guidance on the regulations was not accurate and conflicted with the regulations. As a result, the Scottish Government has agreed to amend the guidance. We did not uphold this complaint, however we recommended that the council review their policy for council tax levies for unoccupied dwellings. The council explained there was an administrative error when processing Mr C's account which explained why he did not receive notification of the council tax levy in writing. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her late mother (Mrs A) by the practice. In particular, she complained that Mrs A had not been seen by a medical professional before antibiotics were prescribed to her, and, futher, that she had not been seen when the antibiotics were subsequently changed. We took independent advice from an advanced nurse practitioner. We found that a home visit should have been carried out before the antibiotics were prescribed to Mrs A and that, as such a visit did not take place, it was even more important that a review should have been undertaken of Mrs A before her antibiotics were changed. The advice we received was that there was a lack of detail in the clinical records and that it was not clear from the records what symptoms Mrs A had when the decision to change antibiotics was made. We were concerned that the practice had failed to follow guidelines that all older patients suspected of having a urinary tract infection, like Mrs A was, should be seen and fully examined. In light of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Mrs C also complained that the practice had inappropriately decided not to undertake a home visit after she had contacted them a number of times. We found that, when the visit was requested, Mrs A had deteriorated and she needed to be seen or arrangements needed to be made for admission to hospital. We also found that, whilst reasonable advice had been given to Mrs C to contact the ambulance service if Mrs A's condition deteriorated, there was a delay in this advice being given to Mrs C. The practice accepted that a home visit should have been carried out. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. Finally, Mrs C complained that the member of staff she was complaining about had responded to her complaint. We found that neither the Scottish Government guidance on complaints handing which was in place at the time of the complaint, or the new NHS Scotland model complaints h

Miss C complained that the board unreasonably refused her breast reduction surgery. She maintained that this should have been done, not for reasons of appearance, but because of her extreme back and neck pain. The board did not agree and said that Miss C failed to meet the criteria necessary for the operation to be carried out. We took independent advice from a consultant in plastic and reconstructive surgery. We found that in consideration of Miss C's case, the board had followed current Scottish Government advice. We did not uphold her complaint. However, we also found that the board had not told Miss C what to do should she continue to suffer severe back and neck pain, and so we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained that the time his son (child A) had to wait to have treatment by the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) was unreasonable. Mr C also complained that the board failed to take into account all of child A's circumstances before reaching a decision to refuse a referral to CAMHS a number of years earlier. Mr C also raised concerns about the board's handling of his complaint. During our investigation we took independent advice from a CAMHS nurse. We found that whilst waiting times for CAMHS are long nationally, the government's waiting time target is for treatment to begin within 18 weeks of referral. In this case, child A had waited eight months from referral to treatment. We found this to be unreasonable. The board told us that families are encouraged to go back to the referrer whilst they are waiting for treatment if they are worried about a deterioration in a child's condition. However, we found no evidence that this had been communicated to Mr C or child A and we were critical of this. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to Mr C's complaint about the board refusing a referral for his son to CAMHS at an earlier date, we found that the referral letter did not mention any mental health concerns. We found the letter only mentioned issues such as family relations and behavioural problems, which would not normally be treated by CAMHS. We therefore found that it was reasonable for the board not to have accepted a CAMHS referral for child A at that time. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We found that the board's handling of Mr C's complaint had been unreasonable. Whilst we considered the board to have taken reasonable steps to ensure patients are aware of the complaints process, we found that the board had failed to meet the 20 working day target for the full response to Mr C's complaint as set out by the Scottish Government's 'Can I help you?' guidance. The board stated that they considered th

Mrs C agreed to have insulation works carried out to her property from funding provided by a Scottish Government scheme. Mrs C complained to the council about works that were still outstanding and the standard of work carried out to her property. Mrs C was particularly concerned that her windows would not open properly. Our investigation found that the council did not have a direct technical role in ensuring the works carried out on this project were completed to a reasonable standard, as they had engaged the services of a managing agent for the project. We found that when issues were raised, the council took the appropriate steps, within their remit, by engaging with a managing agent to ensure that works were carried out to an appropriate standard. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608809 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained about the care and treatment she was given by a consultant surgeon after her GP made an urgent referral for her to attend the board's breast service. She said that her appointment took too long to be arranged after referral and then the examination given had been brief. She believed that she should have been sent for a mammogram because of her presenting symptoms and her reported family history. Ms C complained that by the time she was diagnosed with breast cancer, she required a full mastectomy. The board considered that she had been treated reasonably and appropriately in terms of the relevant protocol. Ms C remained unhappy and complained to us. We took independent advice from a consultant breast surgeon and we found that when Ms C presented initially, there was no need to perform a mammogram and she was appropriately examined and investigated. Five months later, after being urgently referred, Ms C was examined and had a mammogram and ultrasound imaging with biopsies taken. She was diagnosed with an invasive form of breast cancer for which she was given chemotherapy and then a mastectomy. We found that Ms C's treatment had been reasonable, appropriate and timely, in accordance with Scottish Government targets. For these reasons, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608335 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant planning permission for an equestrian centre close to his home. In particular, he said that objections to the development were not properly considered and that it should have been treated as a 'bad neighbour' development (a development that could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties). Mr C also said that the siting of the proposed development was not in accordance with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. However, the council maintained that none of this was the case and that the application had been considered reasonably and appropriately. We obtained independent planning advice and this showed that while all the objections made to the plans had not been reproduced in full in a committee report for the attention of councillors who were making the decision, it was not reasonable to do this. However, the report made it clear that the summaries produced should be read in conjunction with the full text which was available via a weblink. We further found that it was a matter of judgement for the planning authority whether or not a development constituted a 'bad neighbour' development having regard to the wider public interest. While the council took the view that it was not a 'bad neighbour' development, and did not advertise it as such, they had, nevertheless, advertised the proposals. Even if the council had considered the development to be a 'bad neighbour' development, the advert placed would have satisfied Scottish Government regulations. Finally, we found that the report associated with the application assessed the proposals against the LDP policies and while the application did not comply with all aspects of the LDP, the council had considered other relevant policies and material considerations which justified approval. The report had explained the reasons why such a conclusion was reached. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607523 as a PDF (11.5 K

Ms C complained about her daughter's (Miss A) primary school. Miss A had recognised issues at primary school, particularly with her emotional literacy and communication skills. She also reacted badly when she made mistakes. Her head teacher had discussed these issues with Ms C and steps were agreed to help Miss A. However, her problems continued and the head teacher referred the matter to social work in terms of the Scottish Government's 'Getting It Right For Every Child' (GIRFEC) procedures. Ms C complained to the council that the head teacher discriminated against her and that the council were unreasonable in the way they dealt with her complaint. We investigated Ms C's complaint and made further enquiries of the council. We found that GIRFEC procedures are the national approach to improve outcomes for, and to support the wellbeing of, children by offering the right help at the right time. The child is the focus for all organisations involved and the approach encourages early intervention by professionals, for instance, by social work who could provide help to avoid crisis situations at a later date. Miss A had some problems which were not resolving, although her school had involved Ms C in their efforts to help her. Accordingly, the head teacher approached social work in line with GIRFEC guidance. While Ms C considered this to be unreasonable, we found no evidence of this. We did not uphold her complaint. Although Ms C also complained about the way the council later considered her complaint, she was unhappy with the merits of the decision rather than the way the decision on her complaint had been made. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201606618 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained on behalf of Mrs A, who is the director of a company. Ms C complained about the way the Scottish Government had handled a complaint about wages from a former employee of the company. Whilst working for the company, the former employee had contacted the Government in relation to the underpayment of agricultural wages. As part of their statutory investigation function in relation to agricultural wages, the Government inspected the employee's payslips and calculated that there had been underpayments of wages relative to the legislation that fixed the minimum rates of pay. The company disputed this finding and corresponded with the Government over the following months. In concluding their consideration of the case, the Government maintained that the former employee had been underpaid, but decided it was not in the public interest to take enforcement action in this case. Ms C identified arithmetical errors in some of the calculations, and noted that the method the Government had used to calculate the underpayment of overtime pay in this case was not consistent with the method they had used in a previous case. Ms C complained that the Government had not explained the inconsistency in the handling of the two cases, or why the method they now adopted was correct. In response to Ms C's complaint, the Government apologised for the inconsistency and also identified a number of service improvements to ensure that calculations were correct in the future. In response to our enquiries, the Government provided us with further comments on the inconsistency and an explanation in relation to the legislation that they had taken into account when reaching their decision. We were satisfied with the explanation provided to us. However, we were critical that the Government did not provide this explanation to the company in the course of their handling of the former employee's case. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Ms C also complained that the Government h

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to vary the high hedge notice that had been served in relation to his neighbour's garden. He claimed that the maximum height for the hedges in terms of the notice had been calculated with reference to there being a difference in height of one metre between his neighbour's garden and his. He claimed that the base measurements had been wrong and the hedges were higher than they ought to be, but the council insisted they were within the requirements of the notice. The council's position was that they did not have the authority to vary the notice, since it had been superseded by an appeal to the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, they had gone to considerable lengths to try to resolve the dispute with Mr C. We found the council's position to be reasonable and we therefore did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601386 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that the board had failed to properly assess his mother (Mrs A) before she was discharged from Perth Royal Infirmary. He said that, as a result of this, Mrs A had to go into a care home for full-time care, which had cost the family over £20,000 in charges. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician. We found that Mrs A had been discharged without being adequately assessed. There was no evidence of a multi-disciplinary team discussion or of adequate occupational therapy input in the discharge planning process. In addition, we found that that the physiotherapy and nursing notes indicated that she should have had further assessment. Mr C had also raised concerns several times to different members of staff about Mrs A's ability to return home. We found that Mrs A should not have been discharged on the day that she was. In view of this, we upheld the complaint. However, it was likely that she would have been reviewed again a week later and it was possible that a reasonable decision could have been made at that time that she could be discharged. This could have been either to her own home or to a nursing home. Mr C also complained that the board had not informed him of, or acted in accordance with, the relevant Scottish Government guidance on intermediary care following hospital discharge. The relevant guidance is normally used where care homes are being considered. In view of the fact that Mrs A had been discharged home, we found that there was no need to use the guidance. Although we found that staff had not taken sufficient account of Mr C's views at the time of Mrs A's discharge, on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. Finally, Mr C complained to us about the board's handling of his complaint. We found that the board had delayed in responding to Mr C and that the communication with him about a meeting had not been clear. In addition, the board's response said that it had been reasonable to dischar

Mrs C had a new heating system installed by a contractor working on behalf of the Scottish Government. Mrs C complained that the contractor required her to lift additional flooring in her home, which was not agreed at the pre-installation survey. We found that while the need to lift additional flooring was not agreed at the survey, Mrs C signed a document on the day of the survey which stated that it was her responsibility to lift any specialist flooring. The document also stated that while every care would be taken to keep upheaval to a minimum, it might not be possible to carry out the installation without removing some of the flooring. In addition, the document stated that the contractor would not accept responsibility or be held liable for any damage to the flooring arising from the installation. When the installation team visited, they found that Mrs C needed to lift more flooring than she originally thought. Although Mrs C was not expecting this, the paperwork she signed meant Mrs C was responsible for lifting the flooring should she want the installation to go ahead. We also noted that the contractor offered to replace the flooring in one of Mrs C's rooms as a gesture of goodwill. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201602586 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the council's handling of the decision to change her son (child A)'s school class for the following academic year. Child A had been informed of his class before the school summer holidays. However, very shortly before the beginning of the school term, Mrs C was told that he would not be going into the class of which he had been previously informed. Mrs C was unhappy with the way the council handled this decision. Specifically, she felt that they had failed to take into account the provisions of the Scottish Government's 'Getting it Right for Every Child' (GIRFEC) approach by not consulting with her, her husband or child A about the decision and that they had failed to provide her with details of the information on which the council's decision had been based. Mrs C also felt that the council had failed to give a reasonable explanation for their decision, delayed unreasonably in informing her and child A about the decision, and failed to consider the effect the decision would have on child A. As part of our investigation, we received further information from the council about the complaint. Although we could not provide Mrs C with the confidential information received which had led to the council's decision, we were satisfied that the council's explanation for reaching their decision was reasonable and was in line with their policy on the selection of pupils for classes. We also considered the provisions of GIRFEC in relation to children, young people and their families understanding what is happening and having their wishes heard and understood. In this case, child A and his family were not adequately informed about what was happening and why, or given the opportunity to have their wishes heard and understood before the decision was reached. We thought that, had the council contacted child A and his family, this would have also prepared them for the possibility that child A may have to change classes, rather than this decision coming with

Mr C was admitted to Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (irregular and often rapid heartbeat). He was advised at this time that he would possibly need cardioversion (treatment to restore the normal heart rhythm) and that referrals would be made for him to have a scan of his heart and an out-patient appointment with a cardiologist. Mr C complained that it took eight months to receive treatment. We took independent advice from a consultant cardiologist. We found that there were delays in Mr C receiving the scan, an out-patient appointment and treatment. We considered that the delays were unreasonable and failed to meet the Scottish Government's 18-week treatment time target. Although we upheld Mr C's complaint, we did not consider that the delays would have affected Mr C's overall outcome. However, there would have been additional stress for Mr C in not knowing what was happening with his care.

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably rejected his planning application on the basis of reasons which were outwith their jurisdiction. He said that as a result he had to appeal to the local review body, who granted consent, and that this process resulted in additional costs for him. We found that the council rejected the application on grounds which did not appear to fall within the remit of the planning authority. The rejection focused on an element of the application which related to the marine environment and which was subject to licensing through Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority. We noted that, where there was doubt about jurisdiction, this should be reflected in the planning officer's report and that this did not happen in this case. We also noted that no reference to the relevant Scottish Government planning circular was made in the officer's report and that the officer failed to fully explain their assessment of the proposals against the planning policy which was used to refuse the application. For these reasons, we upheld the complaint.