Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C took a masters course which was a conversion course for students with first degrees in other subjects. Mr C complained to the university that they had not delivered all the contact time and activities including tutorials that were required for the conversion programme. The university addressed concerns in one module and took steps to address any disadvantage by moderating marks awarded. When Mr C complained about the lack of conversion tutorials and contact time in other modules, the university investigated and did not uphold his complaint. We considered the correspondence between Mr C and the university and the evidence of the investigations carried out by the university and found that the university had carried out a thorough investigation and reasonably considered all the issues he had raised in reaching their decision on his complaint. In light of what we found, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a postgraduate student, had complained to the university a number of times about a range of matters. When he submitted two new complaints for investigation, as he did not accept the outcome of the front-line resolution, the university responded that they had decided to restrict his access to the complaints handling procedure as they considered his level of contact to be unacceptable. Mr C complained to us about the university's refusal to consider his complaints. Our investigation considered the complaint submissions Mr C made, the university's response to them and their complaints handling procedure.

We found the university had encouraged Mr C to use alternative appropriate ways to raise his concerns and had clearly explained to Mr C their decision to restrict his access in terms of the relevant points of their policy. The university did not exclude him completely from the complaints handling procedure and said they would consider any new complaints if they deemed they were sufficiently serious to warrant investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been placed on report for possessing two unauthorised DVDs, despite them not being specifically listed as unauthorised. Mr C also complained that he had then been punished a second time by having his community access withdrawn by the risk management team.

We found that, under prison rules, the prison had the discretion to deem the DVDs as unauthorised. We also found that the disciplinary process and the risk management process are separate and the prison was entitled to use both of them. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to have a matchstick model kit in use. He said a manager approved his request to purchase the kit and other prisoners had the same kit in use.

The prison is authorised in line with the prison rules to refuse to allow prisoners to have items of property in use that they consider to be a risk to the security or good order of the prison. In Mr C's case, the prison had concerns about the type of cutting tool supplied with the model kit. At the time of approving Mr C's request, the manager had been unaware of the type of cutting tool supplied with the kit. The prison also expressed concern about giving Mr C the kit without the cutting tool because they said there was a risk that an improvised cutting tool could be used. Therefore, the prison decided that Mr C could not have the kit in use. The prison also confirmed that other prisoners did not have the same kit in use. It was clear that the prison were authorised in line with prison rules to refuse to allow Mr C to have the model kit in use and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not give him written notice explaining why he was being removed from his work placement. Mr C also complained that his prison did not use evidence in their decision to place him in secure conditions, did not follow the risk management process, and did not follow the process for reviewing his supervision level.

We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not required to give Mr C notice that he was being recalled from placement because, in fact, Mr C was not recalled; rather, his placement had finished. In addition, the prison rules did not require notice to be given; rather, it specified that a written explanation should be provided which, because Mr C was not recalled, did not apply in this case.

In terms of the evidence used to put Mr C in secure conditions, we were satisfied that the SPS acted in line with their procedures. The SPS were allowed to evaluate changes in a prisoner’s circumstances or behaviour, using information gathered from relevant sources, to help them consider if a prisoner posed a threat to the security or good order of the prison. We also found that the SPS followed the risk management process and the process for reviewing his supervision level. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service failed to appropriately explain why he was returned to closed conditions. The decision was taken to remove Mr C from the open estate (an area with less secure prison conditions) because reports were received which indicated that he was refusing to engage appropriately with support staff to help reduce his risk. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said even though he had been returned to closed conditions, his supervision level remained low and he understood that had not been downgraded.

In looking at Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of the relevant documentation which was completed prior to returning him to closed conditions. It was clear the risk management team (RMT) at the open estate had concerns about Mr C's engagement with support staff and because of that, they felt he could not be managed in open conditions. In addition, Mr C was given the opportunity to put forward representations but he refused. The RMT’s decision was set out clearly and we were also satisfied that Mr C was given reasonable responses to his complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the handling of her progression to less secure prison conditions had been unreasonable. She considered that the steps identified by the prison as her route to less secure conditions were inappropriate and because of that, she was being unreasonably prevented from progressing.

The prison wanted Ms C to participate in an offending behaviour programme before considering whether she was suitable to progress to less secure conditions. Ms C had been assessed as being suitable for the programme and the prison considered that her participation in it would help reduce any risk of reoffending. Prior to that happening, the prison wanted Ms C to undertake some preparatory work to ensure she could participate in the programme appropriately. The reason for that was because although Ms C admitted her offence, she did not accept that she had broken the law.

We reviewed the relevant policies and were satisfied that they supported the prison's position in relation to Ms C's progression. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

After Mr C submitted a planning application, the planning authority concerned consulted Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) about the application. Although Mr C accepted that consultation with SNH was a valid part of the planning process, he felt their contact with the planning authority was excessive and inappropriate. We found that the evidence showed that SNH had a role to play in Mr C’s application and that they were in regular contact with the planning authority. As part of our investigation we also took independent advice from our planning adviser who was of the view that SNH’s contact was not inappropriate. Although we took account of Mr C’s concerns, we agreed that the evidence did not indicate inappropriate discussions or collusion with the planning authority.

Mr C also felt SNH’s consultation response contained inaccurate information which, in his view, caused the planning authority to refuse permission. The evidence indicated that although SNH originally felt that if Mr C’s application was to be granted he should take some additional steps, they softened their position after the planning authority refused the application. Our adviser confirmed that SNH had acted in line with the precautionary approach detailed in Scottish Government guidance and we also considered it clear that SNH’s consultation response was not the sole reason for refusing the application. Viewed as a whole, we did not consider the evidence showed that SNH unreasonably submitted inaccurate information.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council failed to take steps to make her child feel safe at school following a meeting that had been arranged at the school to offer support to them both. Mrs C said that she had raised concerns at this meeting and an earlier meeting with a teacher that her child was being bullied. She said that she had asked that her child was monitored at break and lunchtime, but the council failed to put this in place.

We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. We found no evidence that Mrs C had raised concerns about bullying at either of the meetings or that she had asked for her child to be monitored. Staff who attended the meetings said that they did not recall this being discussed and it was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes referred to two action points that were to be taken forward, but these were not in relation to bullying. We found that the council had taken action to implement these two points after the meeting.

Summary

Mr C complained about development at a caravan park near his home. He complained that two lodges at the site did not meet the criteria to be treated as caravans and felt that these should have required planning permission. Mr C said that the council had failed to allow the planning system to run its course and had been negligent in not requiring a planning application for the earthworks for the lodges (they were located on a steep hillside). Mr C complained that the local plan for the area had not been taken into account and that the council had unreasonably included provision for 14 new stances at the site when granting a new site licence for the caravan park.

After taking independent advice from one of our planning advisers, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We found that the council had determined that the lodges did not meet the definition of a caravan but that the decision on whether to take action was a discretionary matter. The council took the view that no planning purpose would be served by taking enforcement action and we received advice that this was a reasonable decision taken following due consideration. Similarly, we found that the council's decision to accept the earthworks at the site as permitted development to be reasonable. We received advice that as this was a decision that the council was entitled to make which they duly considered, it could only be challenged by judicial review. We found that there was nothing to suggest that the local plan had not been taken into consideration. Finally, we were advised that the inclusion of 14 new stances in the site licence fell within the planning scope established by a certificate of lawful use or development issued by the Scottish Government.