SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C complained to the council about their handling of an incident involving her late brother (Mr A). Mr A had severe learning difficulties and at the time of the incident was receiving 24-hour support at home from a care provider. He fell down a flight of stairs and was seriously injured, after the carer administered a drug with a sedative effect. Mr A died some time later. We acknowledged that the council's communication with Ms C could have been clearer in relation to who was actually investigating the incident but did not consider that they had intentionally misled her. Neither did we consider it unreasonable that the council did not hold a further complaints hearing after Ms C provided them with a report from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the report contained little information that was not already available to the council. We also determined that the council provided a reasonable explanation about why they did not follow procedures laid out in the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and associated code of practice issued by the Scottish Government. We noted, however, that the Scottish Government introduced guidance two months after the incident, clarifying the role of the chief social work officer (CSWO). This outlined that the CSWO should ensure that significant case reviews are carried out into all critical incidents either resulting in, or which could have resulted in, death or serious harm. Although the guidance was not in place at the time of the incident involving Ms C's brother, it came into effect less than two months later, and the council received the care provider's report into the investigation after the guidance had been published. Given the seriousness of the incident, therefore, and the fact that the HSE only recently disclosed more of their report, we concluded that it would have been reasonable for the council to have conducted a significant case review. This would have enabled them to look at all aspects of M

Mr C complained that the council failed to take enforcement action over a number of breaches of planning conditions on a local site. Work on the site had stopped with only one of the planned houses completed. Mr C complained that the breaches of planning conditions had left the site unsafe, and that failing to enforce these conditions would set a precedent that allowed developers to ignore them without fear of enforcement. We took independent advice on this from our planning adviser. He confirmed that the council were correct when they told Mr C that they were entitled to exercise their discretion in deciding whether it was an appropriate use of resources to pursue a breach of planning conditions. The council also had to consider whether enforcement was in the public interest, and had to take into account government advice that developers struggling to complete works due to financial pressures should not be placed under an additional burden by enforcement action for technical breaches of planning conditions. Our investigation found that although the council had mistakenly said that one condition had been met fully when it had not, they had now taken enforcement action against the developer on this. The council were using their discretionary powers when considering whether or not to take enforcement action and had acted in accordance with Scottish Government guidance on planning enforcement. It was clear that there was no maladministration or service failure by the council and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201301570 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that on three separate occasions the prison health centre supplied his medication late. He was also unhappy with the way in which his complaint about this was handled. We took independent advice on this complaint from one of our medical advisers. Our adviser said that, although he might potentially have suffered some pain, the delays would not have had a negative impact on Mr C's medical condition. We noted this, but decided that the overall delays he experienced were unreasonable. In addition, although Mr C was given an extra supply of medication in case this happened again, we made recommendations as we took the view that the board should take further action. Our investigation also found that the board did not follow Scottish Government guidance on the NHS complaints procedure when handling Mr C's complaint. He was told he had to complete a feedback form before being allowed access to a complaints form. By not providing a complaints form on request, the board made Mr C go through an unnecessary additional stage before he could complain. In a separate complaint that we determined last year, we recommended that the board ensure that local complaints processes were in line with the Scottish Government guidance. The board provided us with evidence to show that they had since implemented this (from 1 November 2013) so we did not make a recommendation about that in this case.

Mrs A lives in a care home and needs 24 hour nursing care as she has numerous medical conditions. Her son (Mr C) considered that her medical and nursing needs met the criteria for continuing care funding (funding provided by the NHS for specialist clinical or nursing treatment) set out in the Scottish Government's guidance document (CEL6). The board assessed Mrs A's needs, but did not consider that she met the criteria for continuing care funding. Mr C appealed this, but funding was again refused. He complained to us about the board's assessment of his mother's eligibility. He did not believe the assessment process had been followed correctly or that he and the professionals who directly care for his mother were sufficiently involved in it. We found that, in terms of the assessment of Mrs A's clinical and nursing needs, the board took an appropriately multi-disciplinary approach, using a single assessor to gather information and comments from various professionals involved in Mrs A's care. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied that the board had suitable tools in place to properly assess Mrs A's eligibility for continuing care funding and that the assessor was able to reach a clear, reasoned and evidence-based conclusion. The overall assessment was appropriate and well-documented. That said, we considered the board failed to properly involve Mr C and the care home in the initial assessment and made recommendations relating to this. We were also critical of their communication and explanations of the assessment process and the purpose of a meeting that Mr C attended. However, we noted that these issues were largely resolved at the appeal stage.

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that it took five months for him to see a dentist. He was dissatisfied with the board's response to his complaint, in that they did not tell him what had gone wrong or what they would do to ensure this did not happen again. After Mr C asked to see the dentist, the healthcare team gave him an acknowledgement slip advising that he would be placed on the waiting list. However, a member of staff lost Mr C's paperwork and he was not listed to see the dentist. When the health care team became aware of the problem, they placed Mr C on the waiting list and he was later seen by the dentist. We were concerned that during our investigation the board sent us conflicting responses about the guidance they were using as a standard for treating prisoners. This showed that there was confusion for their staff in relation to the standards they applied. We noted, however, that since taking over responsibility for NHS care in prisons, the board aim to have routine patients seen by a dentist within ten weeks. They also apologised to Mr C for the delay in his case, and told us that they would introduce a new appointments system to reduce the likelihood of this happening again. We were aware that at the time of the complaint the Scottish Government had developed draft guidance for a robust framework for oral health improvement and dental services in Scottish prisons. This says that prisoners will have access to a dentist within ten weeks (the current target timescale). Whilst the board had apologised for the delay, we concluded that it was unreasonable for Mr C to wait 22 weeks to see a dentist and we upheld his complaint. We were satisfied that the board were introducing a new system but considered that they should have explained to Mr C what had gone wrong and the improvements they were making, in order to reassure him.

Mr C made an application to the Scottish Welfare Fund for a crisis grant but the council refused this because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Mr C asked for the decision to be reviewed, because he was waiting for his benefit application to be processed. After the review, the council told Mr C the original decision would not change and no award would be made. Mr C complained to us about the council's handling of his application. In particular, he said the council's communication was poor; there was an unreasonable delay in processing his second tier review (a further review by a panel who are not part of the Fund team); and the guidance was not followed properly. We examined what happened in Mr C's case against the relevant guidance from the Scottish Government, and upheld his complaints. Our investigation found that the council did not explain the evidence that Mr C should put forward when requesting a review, and had not responded to the concerns he raised in his request for a review. The guidance says the applicant should understand why a decision has been made. Mr C was also not told when the panel would consider his second tier review or about his right to see the documents that would be considered. The council also accepted there was a delay in processing that review. They said his letter requesting this was misfiled into his housing benefit file. Finally, the council told Mr C his application was refused because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. However, the guidance clearly states the key test of eligibility for a crisis grant is the severity of the applicant's situation.

Mr C, who has a disability, complained about the council's handling of his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. In particular, he complained that the items he had requested should have been identified as high priority and that the decision-making in his case was wrong. Our investigation considered the Scottish Government’s guidance setting out the process for councils to follow. In Mr C's case, the council had explained to him that they had refused his application because they considered that, based on the information he had provided, there was not a risk of him going into care if the grant was refused. Mr C appealed against this but the council confirmed their decision. Mr C then requested a further review of the decision (second tier review), and it was considered by a panel of people of who did not work for the Scottish Welfare Fund team. After the second tier review, the council decided, as there was new medical information, to award him a grant for one of the items he had requested. We noted that the explanations given by the council for their decision could have been better, but we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201300769 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had not given clear reasons for refusing his application for a community care grant from the Scottish Welfare Fund. There is guidance published by the Scottish Government which sets out the process for councils to follow. Our investigation found that the council had not clearly explained to Mr C why they considered his application to be ineligible (which was because he was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit and had not met the qualifying conditions). Even when asked to provide a clearer explanation the council failed to tell Mr C what information they had taken into account or how they had used the government guidance in arriving at a decision. Nor had they told him whether his application was considered to be high, medium or low priority as they should have. We upheld Mr C's complaint and found some of the conditions being applied were too narrow compared to Scottish Government guidance - in particular, the definition of ‘a family.’ We did not make any recommendations, however, as the council had already made improvements to their handling of applications, including their definitions of qualifying categories. The council also accepted that the explanations given could have been better and have taken steps to improve the decision letters sent to applicants. Related reading View Decision Report 201301468 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to consult with the local community when they imposed a planning obligation on a developer. He said that the community should be consulted and have a say on where the resources agreed as part of this planning obligation should be allocated. The council had explained to Mr C that planning obligations are imposed on developers to mitigate against the direct impact a development may have on an area. This could include the impact on infrastructure, local facilities or the environment, and in this case the planning obligation was to mitigate against environmental impact. They also explained that planning law and the relevant Scottish Government planning circular did not require consultation with the community when setting planning obligations. We considered the information submitted in support of the complaint and the council's response, and reviewed the relevant legislation and planning circulars. Having done so, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as our investigation found that what the council had said was correct, and that there was no duty on them to consult the community in this respect. Related reading View Decision Report 201301815 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C's two children were educated at home. During the academic year 2011/2012, they both attended a course at a local community high school. However, with little notice, the course was withdrawn and there was no alternative provision. Mrs C was later told that community courses were only available to adults and young people over the age of 16. She said this was contrary to her experience as one of her children was aged 14 when attending the course. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably denied her home educated children access to community courses and caused unnecessary confusion to her and her family, as their communication with her about community courses was unclear and inconsistent. Our investigation took into account all the relevant information, including the complaints correspondence and complaints file, the council's policies on education complaints and home education, and relevant sections of the Scottish Government's home education guidance. We found that while the council applied a standard policy with regard to community education, they did not have any documentation about this. It was their intention to develop guidelines to avoid confusion to staff and customers. The council also acknowledged that one of Mrs C's children had previously been allowed to attend a community course in error. The investigation further confirmed that the information given to Mrs C was unclear and confusing, particularly in the absence of a formal written policy.

Mr C raised a number of issues about how the council handled a planning application to vary a condition that had been imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Mr C was unhappy that the council had accepted supporting information provided by the applicant without requesting further evidence from them. He also complained that as the original application had been granted on appeal, the new application should have been referred back to the Scottish Government. After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found no fault in the council's handling of the application. The information provided by the applicant, while useful, was not material in the determination of the application and so the council did not require any further evidence of proof. We found no evidence that the council failed to take account of all relevant material considerations. There was also no requirement on the council to refer the application to the Scottish Government. Related reading View Decision Report 201201276 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison health centre's complaints handling. Mr C had submitted a formal complaint about the health care and treatment he had received. However, the health centre responded to the complaint under the feedback procedure, not the complaints procedure. The board said that this was in accordance with the approach for all informal complaints, which should be dealt with by local response. They said that any further complaints or feedback forms would be dealt with through the formal complaints procedure. They also commented that, where possible, complaints are addressed at the point of contact, unless the complainant wished to pursue their complaint through the formal complaints procedure. We considered that as Mr C had submitted a formal complaint, it should have dealt with as such. We were concerned that the board were using the feedback procedure as an additional level to the NHS complaints procedure. This is restricting, and over-complicates prisoners' access to the NHS complaints procedure. It is clear that Scottish Government guidance does not require NHS users to complete the feedback procedure before accessing the complaints procedure. This should also apply to people receiving NHS care and treatment whilst in prison. Mr C went on to make a further formal complaint to the health centre. However, he said that they returned the complaint form to him, and explained that it was not answered, along with several others, due to the fact that they met him to see if the issues could be dealt with. They said that during the meeting, Mr C withdrew the complaint after agreeing that the problems were resolved. However, we found no records to support this in the evidence we received from the board. Mr C then submitted a further complaint to the health centre, but did not receive a response. The health centre should have sent this complaint to the board for response. Mr C contacted the board, who advised that they had not received it f

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his clients, Company A. Company A had been in a property since October 2008. They were not aware they should be paying for water and Business Stream first contacted them in January 2012. They then discovered that the property had not had a meter until June 2009 which meant they would be billed at a higher rate between October 2008 and June 2009. They also found out that, as their meter was installed under the Scottish Government's full metering programme, for the first few years they were billed on a phased basis, and not on a metered basis. They complained that the developers of the property had requested a meter in March 2008, and if it had been installed then they would not have been billed under this scheme but under the previous system (ie billed on a meter from October 2008). They also complained about the delay in receiving bills between October 2008 and January 2012. The phased charging and full metering programme were Scottish Government policy and we would only be able to uphold a complaint about this if it was clear there had been a failure to install a meter under the old scheme. The developers of the property confirmed in writing they had made this request. However, there was no evidence available from 2008 to show what had happened. Nor was there any evidence that anyone followed up this request to see why no meter had been installed. In the absence of any clear evidence, we did not find there had been any failure to install the meter. The bills had not been issued for some time. However, in August 2008 when Business Stream become the licensed provider for the property, it was noted as vacant and no bills were due, as they would only bill an occupied property. It was the responsibility of Company A to let Business Stream know when they moved in, but in October 2008 they did not do so. The metering programme then meant that a meter was installed in June 2009. However, meters were installed on all non-dome

An employee of Scottish Water visited Mr C's business premises and advised that he was going to install a water meter. As he had received no prior warning, Mr C at first refused permission for this. However, following discussions with Business Stream, during which he was told that the cost to him would be minimal, Mr C agreed to the meter installation. He was unhappy to then receive a water bill a year later, which he considered excessive as he used no water at his business premises. Mr C complained that it was inappropriate for the water meter to be installed and that he was given insufficient information about the charges he would incur. He said that, had he known about the charges, he would have had the water supply disconnected, as his business does not use water. We found that Mr C's business had been identified as a gap site (a site that has been receiving water-related services without being charged). It was appropriate for a meter to be installed in line with the Scottish Government's Full Business Metering scheme. However, we were concerned by the lack of information given to Mr C about the metering process. Mr C had asked Business Stream about their charges and they had been unable to provide him with any information. We found this to be unreasonable as, although they could not predict how much water Mr C would use, they should have been able to tell him about their fixed charges.

Mrs C runs a small business. She complained about the way her bills had been handled by Business Stream. Mrs C was told in June 2011 that she had not been paying enough for her water and had a backlog of debt. Since then, the amount for which she is being billed has doubled. Until 2009, Mrs C paid for water based on the rateable value of the property. A Scottish Government decision meant that from 1 April 2009 all businesses began paying for water, based on the amount they used. To allow businesses to adapt to this, the move to the new charging system was phased, with only 30 percent of the bill in the first year being based on usage and this moved to 100 percent on 1 April 2011. As part of the new scheme, Business Stream are required to read the meters to ensure actual meter readings twice per year. Mrs C received bills from 1 April 2009 until 10 June 2011 based on estimated readings. When the first meter reading was made, it was shown that the business had used considerably more water than had been estimated. Mrs C queried this and it was found that there had been an error and this bill was reduced. However, she was still left with a debt and it became clear that due to the change from rateable value to charging by usage, Mrs C was facing considerably larger bills. Our investigation found that Business Stream had made a mistake when they first read Mrs C's meter. However, they were now calculating bills correctly. We also considered the Scottish Government policy. The aim of the phased period was to allow businesses time to adjust and to take any action they could to reduce their water usage prior to the bills being solely charged on usage. We found, however, that Business Stream had failed to read the meter for nearly two years. This meant that Mrs C had not been able to take any action or to prepare for the increase in bills. Even although the bills were now correct, we upheld her complaint that Business Stream failed to handle the billing approp

Mr C and his partner sought in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment on the NHS. The board, however, said that because Mr C's partner's child from a previous relationship lives with them, they were not eligible for treatment. Mr C said that this decision was unreasonable because the board's policy on assisted conception discriminates against him and other men who have no biological children. He also said that the board did not deal with his complaint properly in that there were inaccuracies and delays in their responses and that they failed to address his complaint. We explained to Mr C that it was not for us to determine whether the board's policy was discriminatory, but that we would consider whether their actions were reasonable. We found that their decision was reasonable in light of the framework for infertility services accepted by the Scottish Government and that, in taking legal advice and ensuring compliance with Scottish Government guidelines, they had acted in line with legislation and guidance. We did find that the board delayed in responding to the complaint and that their responses should have provided a clearer explanation about the framework for infertility services from the outset. However, we made no recommendations about this, in light of the fact that the board reviewed their complaints management system earlier this year. Related reading View Decision Report 201103655 as a PDF (11.31 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about information provided to him about planning permission in 2000 and 2007/8, lack of information sharing between the planning and building control departments, and the handling of his enquiries about these matters in 2010. Our investigation, which included taking independent advice from a planning adviser, found that the information provided by the planning and building control departments had been accurate and complete and was not misleading. It had been made clear to Mr C and the architect who had acted as his agent that the grant of planning permission did not negate the need to apply for a building warrant and vice versa. We also found that the level of information sharing and co-operation between the two departments was similar to that in most if not all councils in Scotland. This also complied with the guidance offered by the Scottish Government via the Building Standards Division - Procedural Handbook. We did not uphold these complaints. We did, however, uphold Mr C's complaint about delay. We found that there were delays in dealing with his queries when he came to sell his property in 2009-10. Mr C had to apply for a letter of comfort (a letter that confirms that any work done on a property without planning permission and/or a building warrant has been done to an acceptable standard). The council admitted that due to staffing difficulties in 2010 there were unacceptable delays in the processing and issuing such letters. They apologised to Mr C for this in their response to his complaint in January 2012, and took action to ensure that the situation was not repeated. They are also currently reviewing their systems in preparation for the implementation of the Building Standards Framework developed by the Scottish Government and due to be implemented in October 2012.

Mr C lives close to a church building which had fallen out of use. It had been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications for conversion and change of use to flats. In late 2009 a successful application was made to convert the building to a crematorium. Mr C and his wife did not live close enough to the building to be notified about this application. In the autumn of 2011, however, Mr C became aware of the provisions of the Cremation Act 1902 (the Act), which stipulate that no new crematorium should be built closer than 200 yards from the nearest house or 50 yards from a public road, without the permission of owners and occupiers. Mr C complained to the council, saying that they had failed to have proper regard for the Act in granting planning consent for the conversion and failed to protect Mr C's residential amenity; unreasonably delayed in dealing with his complaint, and unreasonably failed to answer his questions about their response to a Scottish Government consultation on the Act. After seeking independent advice from our planning adviser, we found that the council, with qualification, were entitled to decide that the distance stipulations were not relevant to the granting of planning consent as they formed part of a different regulatory framework. There was also no evidence that the amenity of residents was disregarded when determining the application, and we did not uphold these complaints. We found that there had indeed been a delay in dealing with Mr C's complaint (but the council had apologised) and that they had neglected to answer his query about the council's consultation response. That issue was resolved by a senior officer explaining an apparent inconsistency. We, therefore, upheld both of those complaints, but made no recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201104874 as a PDF (11.56 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council charged him a late renewal fee for his landlord registration, although he had not received email reminders that the council said were issued. The council confirmed that these were issued automatically by the Scottish Government’s online landlord registration system and that nothing had been received from Mr C’s email address saying that they were not delivered. We were unable to prove or disprove whether the reminder emails were sent and received. However, when we investigated it was clear that it was Mr C’s responsibility to ensure that he renewed his registration in a timely manner. His previous registration in May 2008 was valid for three years. It was, therefore, due for renewal in May 2011. However, we found that he had not contacted the council for advice on the application process until March 2012. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201201577 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused his son a place on the school bus. Mr C had to apply for a concessionary seat for his son, who was not entitled to free school transport if he attended a school which was not the school for his catchment area. Mr C was unhappy that the council refused his son's application. We considered the complaint, the council's responses to Mr C and his MSP, and the council and Scottish Government guidance on entitlement to free school transport when attending a non-catchment area school. We found that councils have a statutory responsibility to provide free school transport to certain categories of pupils. However, if a pupil is placed in a school as a result of a parent's placing request (ie one that is not in the relevant catchment area for where the pupil lives), they are not entitled to automatic free school transport. In cases such as these, parents must apply to the council regularly to request that they be considered for concessionary places. The council does not have a statutory duty to provide these places and they are not guaranteed. Our investigation found that the decision not to award a place on the bus to Mr C's son was a decision that the council were entitled to make, and that there was no evidence of administrative error in the way they dealt with the matter. Related reading View Decision Report 201005084 as a PDF (17.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C entered into a council tenancy in 2007. Before she took the tenancy, the council had applied for and received Pressured Area Status (PAS) (which indicates that the demand for social housing outstrips supply) which meant that they had suspended tenants' right to buy their property until 2010. Ms C had, however, anticipated that after serving the qualifying five years as a tenant she would be able to buy her home in 2012. In 2009 she applied to install central heating at her own expense. She was not specifically told then that the council might apply to extend the initial PAS period. The council announced that intention in October 2009, and the Scottish Government granted a five year extension. Changes in the legislation after that allowed the council to exercise their powers to extend the period further, to 2020. Ms C complained that she had not been told of the possibility of the council applying for an extension, either when she signed for the tenancy or when she asked for permission to install central heating. The council decided to apply for an extension five months after they gave Ms C permission to install central heating. While Ms C was clearly adversely affected by this and other policy decisions, in the absence of errors in the decision-making process we could not investigate these. We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found that Ms C's original tenancy documents clearly stated that PAS was in place and that the council reserved the right to apply for an extension. She signed the documents and, therefore, the council clearly gave her accurate information about the position on right to buy. Related reading View Decision Report 201102109 as a PDF (17.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent Mr A about the Scottish Government's (SG) Sea Eagle Management Scheme. He said that it failed to allow Mr A to adequately protect livestock from sea and/or golden eagles and to compensate for lost stock. Our investigation found that the scheme (operated on behalf of the SG by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)) provides grants for measures to protect livestock from predation from sea eagles where there is known to be a nest site for a breeding pair of sea eagles within five kilometres of a croft, farm or other land used for livestock. Grants are paid in arrears for certain relevant work. Individuals or groups can make an application for funding and the money is paid on completion of the work. The scheme does not provide compensation for lost livestock. Evidence provided by the SG showed that SNH did not have evidence of a nest site within qualifying distance of Mr A's croft. The nearest known nest site was some ten to eleven kilometres away. Mr A had suggested that there might be nests on platforms set up on private or Forestry Commission Scotland land nearer to Mr A's croft but SNH were not aware of any such sites. They had asked Mr A to provide them with information about any nests that he knew of but he did not appear to have done so. SNH said that there were known to be two successfully breeding pairs of golden eagles within five kilometres of Mr A's croft but that the scheme did not cover these birds. SNH had offered to send a vet, at no cost to Mr A, to examine any carcasses to try to establish if the predation was from sea or golden eagles or other predators such as foxes or ravens but he had declined. They had also offered to send an officer to advise Mr A on the measures he could take to protect his livestock but again he declined. We found, therefore, that the SG had made reasonable efforts to assist Mr A and that they had acted appropriately. We did not find any evidence of maladministration or service fa

Mr C is the carer for his son who has a severe and enduring mental illness. Following a reorganisation of the board's mental health services, the consultant psychiatrists became either in-patient or community focused. This led to a change in consultant for many patients, including Mr C's son. The board consulted a number of representative groups about the changes. Mr C complained that the board failed to consult with patients and carers and that consultation with the groups was not a substitute for this. He said that the board failed to comply with the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Government guidance and the board's strategy on consulting and involving people. He also complained about the board's complaints handling. We found that the board did not fail in their duties under the relevant legislation when they reorganised mental health consultant services and so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about that. We also found that when the board consulted with the representative groups, they complied with the guidance. However, we upheld Mr C's remaining three complaints as we found that the board failed to adhere to their strategy and that it would have been reasonable and proportionate if they had sought to discuss the planned changes directly with patients and carers. We also found failures in the board's complaints handling. We made no recommendations as the board had already taken action to address the failings identified. Related reading View Decision Report 201101412 as a PDF (17.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C rears cattle. He complained about the actions of an officer working on behalf of the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) (an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, working partly on behalf of the Scottish Government). He also complained about the AHVLA's handling of his complaints. Mr C complained that the officer had been aware of the location of some of his cattle, yet had written asking for clarification of their whereabouts. Mr C said that one of the officer's colleagues had told the officer where the cattle were. We did not , however, uphold this complaint as there was no evidence available to suggest that the officer was in fact aware of the location of the cattle. Although there appeared to have been some misunderstanding during the correspondence between the officer and Mr C, it was clear that the movements of the cattle were complex and we considered it reasonable for the officer to seek clarification of their whereabouts. Mr C also complained that the officer had unreasonably requested that Mr C present his cattle for testing, when the officer had not done anything about the situation for over two years. Our investigation established there were a number of sound reasons why he had not made contact with Mr C during that time. These included that Mr C had made a complaint about the officer to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; there were ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr C in relation to the Tuberculosis Order 2007; and the Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate were trying to complete inspections of the cattle. The officer had, therefore, been advised to await the conclusion of all of these before contacting Mr C again about tuberculosis testing, which is why the delay occurred. On that basis we did not uphold this complaint. We upheld Mr C's complaint about the AHVLA's complaints handling, as we found that they did not respond fully to all aspects of Mr C's complaint letter. Re

Ms C, an advice worker, complained on behalf of Mrs A, whose husband (Mr A) was admitted to hospital in November 2009 due to depression and suicidal feelings. While he was in hospital, Mrs A and her husband found the staff's attitude to be poor. They also felt that there was a lack of support around the time of his discharge home. Some ten months later, Mr A was diagnosed with a rectal tumour. Ms C complained that staff at the hospital did not carry out investigations when Mr A advised them of rectal bleeding and changed bowel habits during his admission. We found that there was insufficient evidence to confirm whether Mr A raised these concerns with staff during his stay. We were concerned, however, with the arrangements for his discharge and follow-up treatment and found that additional support to carry out day-to-day tasks could have been provided during his stay. Recommendation We recommended that the board: • review their handling of Mr A's discharge and take steps to ensure future compliance with the guidance in the Scottish Government's Best Practice Template - 'Admission, Transfer and Discharge Protocol for hospital patients in Scotland.' Related reading View Decision Report 201100277 as a PDF (18.7 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018