Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his position on the waiting list for an offending behaviour programme had been unreasonable. He was temporarily transferred to prison in England and because of this, Mr C said that he was removed from the waiting list in error. Mr C also said that when he returned to Scotland, his name was put back on to the waiting list but it was put back in the wrong position.

The SPS explained that when a prisoner is no longer in their custody, the electronic system updates and automatically removes the individual from any programme waiting lists. They also confirmed that when Mr C returned to custody, the system was notified and he was automatically returned to the waiting list. The SPS also confirmed that Mr C's position on the waiting list was in line with the relevant policy.

We were satisfied that what happened in Mr C's case was normal practice and in line with relevant policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not paying him appropriately. He said he usually worked three-and-a-half shifts per week and received £8. However, Mr C said the SPS had advised him that he would be required to work additional shifts but he would not receive any extra wages. Mr C said other prisoners worked fewer shifts than him but received the same wage payment.

The SPS explained that a new working pattern had been introduced in an effort to address similar complaints. It was decided that all prisoners would be required to work nine shifts each week and the shifts would be carried out in two work parties. The SPS acknowledged there were still some prisoners working only three-and-a-half shifts per week but as they were gradually being allocated positions, the number was reducing.

We were satisfied that the explanation provided by the SPS was reasonable and in line with the prisoner wage earning policy. We accepted that Mr C was being paid appropriately and that it was also reasonable for some prisoners to be receiving a full wage for work that had not yet been allocated to them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were failing to provide appropriate dietary requirements for Jewish festivals, specifically the Seder, a ceremonial meal eaten as part of Passover.

SPS rules say that the governor must ensure that every prisoner is provided with a diet that takes into account, as far as practicable, the prisoner's age, health, religion, and cultural, dietary or other requirements. In addition, according to the SPS food manual, prisons should cater for a minimum of three separate religious festivals each year. In this case, the prison had already catered for Ramadan, Passover and Eid Al Adha. They also planned to cater for Christmas.

We considered the evidence available and took the view that the SPS were meeting the requirements of the prison rules and the food manual. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the management by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his progression to less secure conditions. In particular, he stated that the Parole Board for Scotland had decided a plan for his progression to the less secure conditions but that this had been disregarded by the SPS.

The Parole Board for Scotland make decisions on whether to release a prisoner, not on sentence management, which is reserved for the SPS. In Mr C's case, we found no evidence of fault in the SPS's handling of his progression to less secure conditions.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to follow correct procedures when diverting a long-distance pathway which was also part of the council's core path network. He said this removed his right to object and comment on the proposed diversion.

We found that as the council were not required to close and divert the route, the consultation process would not apply. We found no evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained about the way the council investigated a complaint about the conduct and attitude of an officer at an appeal hearing. Ms C said the officer unreasonably and unfairly undermined her case and was rude and antagonising.

We found the council had appointed a suitable investigating officer and had given attendees, including independent people, the opportunity to contribute their evidence. Ms C was unhappy that the council had not spoken to her or a friend who accompanied her to the hearing. We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision for the council, and that the details of her dissatisfaction were already on record. We were satisfied the council were entitled to give particular weight to the evidence of independent people. We found the complaint had been investigated to the standard and extent we would expect. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C raised a number of complaints about the council's handling of a planning application for a house on a plot neighbouring her own. She felt that the council failed to take account of her objections to the application, failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the development, recorded inaccurate site boundaries and incorrectly said in the planning report that there were no trees on site.

We reviewed the evidence and found that the council had taken into account Ms C's objections when assessing the application. They noted the boundary dispute and correctly advised that this was a private legal matter. In addition they imposed planning conditions in order to protect Ms C's amenity.

Although the planning officer said that the site had been cleared and Ms C said that one tree remained on the site, we took the view that the planning officer's description of the site was reasonable. In our view it was appropriate for the planning officer to highlight the site clearance to the council's bio-diversity officer for assessment. We were satisfied that the planning report was appropriate and we considered that the council had given reasonable consideration to the impact of the development on the environment.

Summary

Mrs C brought a complaint on behalf of Mrs A, who lives in a block of accommodation. Mrs C complained that the council unreasonably withdrew their offer of grant funding towards works required to bring Mrs A's house up to a reasonable standard. She also complained that the council failed to provide Mrs A with assistance in seeking agreement from the other property owners in the block to arrange for the works to be carried out.

We found that the block in which Mrs A's home was included was identified as being sub-standard. Initially the council's efforts were directed towards assisting owners of the properties concerned to arrange for the works to be completed to bring the properties up to a habitable standard. To assist with this, the council offered grants towards the costs of the works. However, as the owners did not agree to carry out the works themselves, the council were required, using their powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, to intervene and take responsibility for arranging for the works to be completed. As they were required to carry out the works, they withdrew their offer of grant funding.

We found that the council had provided advice and assistance to owners in their efforts to progress the improvement works. It was noted, however, that Mrs A had not requested additional support. We noted that the decision to withdraw grant funding where owners do not agree to take forward the improvement works themselves was in line with the council's scheme of assistance. We therefore did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison healthcare centre stopped prescribing medication he had been taking for physical and mental problems. Mr C also complained that the board ignored his complaint, which resulted in his health worsening.

We took independent medical advice and found that the healthcare centre had discussed Mr C's medications with him. We considered that the decision to stop Mr C's medications was appropriate and in line with guidance issued by the General Medical Council and the National Institute of Excellence.

We considered that it would have been helpful for the board, in their written reponse to Mr C's complaints, to have given more detailed information about why some of his medications were not being prescribed. However, we found overall that their comments were reasonable.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the care and treatment provided to her husband (Mr A) by the board. She complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the board diagnosing Mr A with lymphoma (cancer of the lymph nodes). She also complained that a doctor had refused to sign a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) form for Mr A when he became ill. (Personal Independence Payment is a benefit that can be awarded to those with long-term ill-health or a disability to help cover the additional costs of their illness.) Lastly, she complained that the board did not provide a reasonable standard of palliative care to Mr A.

We took independent advice on the complaint from a nursing adviser, a GP and a surgical consultant. We found that the board carried out reasonable investigations into Mr A's presenting symptoms over a period of several years and there were no signs of lymphoma that were unreasonably missed. We found that there was no evidence to suggest that a doctor had refused to sign a PIP form. We also found that whilst there was some delay in Mr A receiving appropriate medication before his death, the standard of palliative care provided to him was reasonable.