Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was pursuing a full-time education programme in prison and complained when it was stopped. He said he had had serious literacy difficulties but that the education provision had helped him hugely and he wanted to access more education opportunities.

We established that the prison had provided far more education for Mr C than prisoners usually receive. This was largely because of his literacy difficulties and the difficulty he had in obtaining work in the prison. The prison agreed with him that he had done very well and had achieved a number of accredited qualifications but said the time had come for him to transfer some of what he had learnt into work activity, which they wanted to arrange for him in the prison. They also said that they needed to use some of their resources to help other prisoners with greater needs, but that they were still providing six hours of education a week for Mr C and would continue to try to meet his wishes. We considered that they had acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the process the prison applied at his disciplinary hearing (a process that looks at whether a prisoner has broken prison rules, and if so, what punishment to award). Our role in looking at this type of complaint is to consider whether the prison followed the correct process before deciding whether the prisoner was guilty of breaking the rules. We are not a further route for prisoners to appeal against that decision and we cannot overturn it.

Mr C complained that the adjudicator of the hearing refused to call witnesses he had identified or to view CCTV footage. Mr C said prison rules said that before finding a prisoner guilty of breaking prison rules, the adjudicator should be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. Because the adjudicator refused to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage, Mr C questioned how the adjudicator could have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of breaking the rules.

The rules confirm that at the disciplinary hearing, a prisoner may request that a witness be called. This request must be granted where the adjudicator is reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give will be relevant to deciding on the charge. The supporting guidance also says that the adjudicator is responsible for assessing the truth of each statement given in evidence at the hearing and for deciding whether the prisoner is guilty of breaking the rules. In Mr C's case, the adjudicator confirmed that he would call witnesses if he felt it was appropriate to do so. However, after hearing the statement from the officer who witnessed Mr C breaking the rules, the adjudicator confirmed that he did not need to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage. We found that the adjudicator had the discretion to refuse to call Mr C's witnesses or to view the CCTV footage, and he was also responsible for assessing the truth of the various statements. We considered that the process applied at Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and carried out in line with the relevant procedure, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

A charity operates out of three units in a shopping centre. Mr C complained on behalf of the charity that they were being charged for surface water drainage (SWD) on the units despite the roof operating as a car park. Mr C said that the owner of the car park pays for SWD and, therefore, Business Stream were charging twice for the same services.

Business Stream told us that all three units have their own rateable value, as detailed on the Scottish Assessors Association website (which contains information about the current rateable values for properties in Scotland). To be charged SWD there must be a rateable value associated with the property, as this how the bill is calculated. The shopping centre and the car park have no rateable value and so could not be charged SWD. Business Stream did tell us that the owner of the car park had been charged a small amount for SWD, but that this was a mistake and they would correct it. We found that Business Stream had followed their policy in applying SWD charges to the units and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Accountant of Court had not properly supervised a judicial factor. A judicial factor is appointed when money and assets need to be protected to ensure that debtors can, if possible, be paid. One had been appointed in relation to a firm of solicitors that had undertaken work relating to the executry of Mr C's late mother. Before this work was completed the solicitors had taken interim fees and had these assessed, and they had also ceased trading. The final work was transferred to another firm and a judicial factor was appointed to ensure debts were paid whenever possible. Mr C told us he was unhappy that when he complained about the amount of fees charged, the judicial factor referred this to an Auditor of Court for the fee to be 'taxed'. This is a formal process and the decision (called taxation) is normally binding. Mr C said that the fees could simply have been changed without any need for this process, and that the decision was based on an assumption that there were five meetings with the solicitors when there had only been two. He also complained to the Law Society (who regulate the work of solicitors) who accepted that the recording of three meetings had been dishonest. Mr C said that in light of the Law Society's findings the judicial factor had wrongly reported that there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The judicial factor is not within our jurisdiction, neither are solicitors. Our role was limited to assessing whether the Accountant of Court had correctly supervised the judicial factor. Before we could say that they had failed to do so, we would need to find that they had been wrong to rely on the decisions of the judicial factor, either because these were clearly unreasonable or there was a material error. We found that there was no evidence that the taxation calculation included five meetings. The decision had not relied on the solicitors' files, which were incomplete. We also found that, as Mr C alleged dishonesty in the fee calculation, the referral to someone independent was appropriate and that there was no need to investigate the taking of the interim fee. In the circumstances, there was no evidence that the Accountant of Court had not acted reasonably within their discretion when supervising the judicial factor and we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not follow relevant policy in dealing with his progression through the prison system to less secure conditions, in preparation for his eventual release. Mr C felt that two Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policies about progression were contradictory. He also complained about how the SPS handled his complaint.

We looked at the relevant SPS policies and found that they did not set out an automatic progression route with mandatory timescales. Instead, they set out a framework within which SPS staff could assess the needs of, and risks presented by, prisoners. Each prisoner's case is dealt with on its individual merits, taking into account a number of relevant factors, with timescales presented as a guide. One of the policies clearly stated that it was setting out a best case scenario, and that the time taken to progress could be longer or shorter than suggested. We could not see any contradiction, in administrative terms, between the relevant SPS policies. Having looked at the records for Mr C's case, we could not conclude that his prison unreasonably failed to follow policy in dealing with his progression. In addition, we were satisfied that the SPS' handling of Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained that the adjudicator's handling of his disciplinary hearing was inappropriate. We obtained a copy of the record taken at the hearing, and reviewed the relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance document to assess whether the hearing was carried out appropriately.

We were satisfied that the adjudicator's handling of Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and in line with prison rules and the relevant guidance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately ignored instructions issued by the prison health centre. He said he was to be provided with a suitable chair and orthopaedic mattress because of back pain. The prison said they checked with the health centre who confirmed that there was no medical requirement for Mr C to receive the items, but he disputed that.

We checked the position with the health board responsible for the prison health centre, who initially told us the prison health centre did support Mr C's request for the chair and mattress. However, the board then told us that this was wrong. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service checked with the prison doctor, who reviewed Mr C's medical record and confirmed that he did not need to be provided with the chair or mattress. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Forestry Commission Scotland (the Commmission) had not carried out our recommendations on a previous complaint he made about the humane dispatch of deer (case 201103288). He also said that they had not adequately explained and clarified their policy and that he believed the response he received when he raised matters with them was inadequate and dismissive.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the commission had implemented our recommendations appropriately and reasonably. Although Mr C continued to disagree with their policy on the humane dispatch of deer this was a discretionary decision for the Commission, and one that we had already considered in our previous investigation. In his most recent complaint to them, Mr C had continued to raise matters that we had already investigated, and so they had made it clear in their letter to him that they did not intend to continue to correspond on these matters. They had appropriately and reasonably addressed the new issues he raised.

Summary

Mr C complained about a staircase that his neighbour erected near their mutual property boundary. He said that the original plans showed a staircase at the other end of the building, to which he did not object. Mr C told us that he now feels that he has no privacy because, although there is a high wall between him and his neighbour, his neighbour was allowed to build above it.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who found no concerns about the original decision, or the decision to treat this change as a non-material variation to the plans. We explained to Mr C that planning authorities make decisions on a wide range of planning matters, and have the right to decide on all of these by exercising their discretion. Our role is to consider the council's handling of the matter. In this case we found no evidence of maladministration or service failure on the part of the council, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council did not follow their procedures when dealing with her concerns that her child was being bullied at school. She also complained about how the council dealt with her complaint.

The law describes the types of complaints we can and cannot look at, and what we can and cannot do about them. It says that we cannot look into conduct or discipline matters in schools, so we could not investigate the allegations of bullying or reach a view on whether Miss C was bullied. It is important to note that although Mrs C was certain her child was being bullied, the school did not agree. We looked into the school records and found that although Mrs C was not satisfied with the outcome, her concerns were taken seriously. In keeping with their procedures the school made reports of alleged bullying incidents, records of meetings they had with Mrs C, and action plans to support the child at school.

Mrs C also felt that the council's response to her complaint was factually inaccurate. We found, however, that it was an accurate reflection of the school's records, and their letter to Mrs C was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaints.