Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss C complained that the university did not offer her a further opportunity to submit her final assignment, and that their handling of her academic appeal was inadequate.

During our investigation, we looked at university policies and regulations, and at the records of Miss C's appeal. We found that regulations allowed academic staff flexibility in setting work for re-assessment, both in terms of the form the assessment would take, and the number of attempts allowed. The evidence showed that, in dealing with Miss C's attempts at the assignment, academic staff acted in line with policy and regulations.

Miss C told us that the handling of her first stage appeal was biased, because a particular member of academic staff was involved and that her second stage appeal was not even considered. We found that the member of staff was not involved in considering the first appeal or making a decision on it, and we found no evidence of bias in consideration of that appeal. We also found that the second stage appeal was considered in line with the academic appeals procedure. In addition, Miss C told us that the university did not take account of her medical and personal circumstances, and she was not given enough time to submit her appeal. We found that, where relevant, the university did consider Miss C's circumstances during the appeal, and that she was given sufficient time to submit it in terms of the timescales set out in the academic appeals procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not given a mattress or bedding on a particular evening after the prison placed him in segregation. He said that he had not self-harmed, displayed erratic behaviour or damaged property until after he was moved to another cell.

We did not find evidence to support comments by a prison officer that Mr C damaged property immediately before being transferred to a segregation cell. Nevertheless, there was evidence suggesting he had self-harmed, and that staff had tried to allow him to remain in his usual cell. However, when staff tried to remove items from his cell for safety reasons Mr C made further suicidal comments, which resulted in him being transferred to a safer environment, in accordance with the suicide risk procedure.

There was evidence to show that attempts were made to place him under observation in two segregation cells. However, he damaged one of the cells by removing the electrical sockets, and attempted to do similar damage to the other one. This resulted in him being transferred to a special cell with no sockets. He was noted to be non-compliant with staff and a decision was taken not to give him bedding or open the cell door because of his unpredictable behaviour and past history. The prison have a duty to ensure that a prisoner is provided with sufficient bedding for warmth and health. However, they also have discretion to remove items from a cell as they see fit. Whilst it was not ideal that Mr C had no bedding, the room was heated and he had access to a sleeping plinth. We found no evidence to show that the prison failed to follow their procedures when managing Mr C under the suicide risk management strategy.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had failed to re-assess the invoice his company received for water used, despite this clearly being in excess of normal usage. He said that there was no evident reason for the spike in consumption.

We found that Business Stream had taken all the actions they needed to investigate Mr C's report of high water consumption. Whilst the reason had not been identified, we found that Business Stream had reassured themselves that it was not due to something which they had a responsibility to attend to. They explained that as neither they nor Mr C's plumber had found a leak or reason for the high water consumption, it appeared to be related to internal issues, such as a cistern constantly flowing, or taps being left running. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint, Business Stream agreed that they would seek further reassurances by asking Scottish Water to check further back on whether there might have been any action on the water network which might have caused the increased reading in the meter.

Summary

Mr C complained to the prison because he considered that staff had failed to follow his care plan appropriately. He then complained to us that the prison's investigation of his complaint was inadequate even though they upheld it and agreed to take forward changes. In particular, Mr C did not consider that some of what they had said about his behaviour was accurate and he felt they did not respond fully to the issues he raised.

We obtained copies of the evidence that the prison looked at as part of their investigation of Mr C's complaint. We identified that there was information to support the prison's version of events in relation to Mr C's behaviour even though he disagreed. However, it was clear that the prison failed to acknowledge, or respond to, all of the issues Mr C raised but we were satisfied that the overall outcome of the complaint was appropriate. Therefore, we concluded that the prison's investigation was adequate and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not provide a meal to mark a religious holiday. We noted that there was no requirement on the prison to provide such a meal. However, our investigation indicated that they did provide a meal which was better than usual meals and which was intended to mark the religious holiday. The prison said they had also taken the opportunity to broaden the understanding of other prisoners who were not observing the holiday by making the menu available to all prisoners and by including an explanation on the menu. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the prison was paying him an unfair wage. He also said they failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

Our investigation highlighted that there were prisoners employed in the same work party working the same hours as Mr C but receiving a higher wage than him. A new work timetable was introduced by the prison prior to Mr C's arrival and because of that, the hours those prisoners previously worked were reduced. The SPS national wage earning policy says that prisoners should not be penalised for wage earning if work or activity is reduced due to operational reasons. As a result, the prison continued to pay those prisoners the wage they received prior to their hours being reduced. In Mr C's case, he began work after the new timetable was brought in. As he was being paid in line with the policy in place at the time we, therefore, did not uphold his complaint. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the prison handled his complaint to them.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to deal appropriately with his requests to be transferred to a different prison.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are entitled to decide how best to manage the prison population. Therefore, it is up to them to decide whether or not to grant transfer requests, taking into account all relevant information. We cannot question these decisions unless there is evidence that they have not been taken properly. Neither can we have a prisoner placed in a particular prison. Our role is to consider whether the SPS act in line with relevant processes or procedures.

We looked at information provided by Mr C and the SPS, and we found that although it took a number of months for Mr C to be transferred, this was reasonable in the circumstances. It was clear that SPS staff made reasonable efforts to have Mr C transferred to an appropriate prison; however, in doing so, they had to take into account several factors about the receiving prison's population, in addition to Mr C's own situation. We were satisfied that the SPS dealt with Mr C's transfer requests appropriately and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison he was in failed to make adequate arrangements for the provision of halal food. He said that he wanted the imam for the prison to taste random halal meals, as he considered that the halal goods brought into the prison were not halal by the time they reached prisoners' plates.

The prison rules say that the prison governor must taste and check samples of the food. They must also ensure that every prisoner is provided with food that takes into account, as far as practical, the prisoner's age, health and religious, cultural, dietary or other requirements. However, there is no requirement for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to arrange for an imam to taste halal food. During our investigation, the prison told us that halal food is prepared separately, and that utensils are sterilised before use to prevent cross-contamination. They said that, once the meat is prepared, it is placed into individual containers and is then refrigerated or frozen and the containers stored in separate sections. They also sent us halal certificates from their meat suppliers.

Mr C also wanted his food to be served by a Muslim prisoner. Ideally, halal food would be served by a practising Muslim and we could understand Mr C's concerns that, in the prison, it was not. However, there was no requirement for the SPS to arrange this and the decision on who served halal food in the prison was one for them to make, which we could not question in the absence of any evidence of maladministration in the taking of that decision.

We found that the SPS had made reasonable arrangements to provide halal food in the prison, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that COPFS failed to send a production release note to the police. This would allow Mr C to collect his property, which was used as evidence in a court case, from the police. Our jurisdiction is very limited in complaints about COPFS. In this case, we looked at whether or not COPFS followed the proper procedure, or considered relevant information in dealing with the administrative process of returning property to Mr C.

We found there was a delay in this matter being resolved. COPFS explained how this happened, and the action they took to address this problem. They also apologised to Mr C. COPFS confirmed to Mr C, and to us, that a release note was sent to the police. We were satisfied that COPFS sent a release note to the police and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C lived in a council property between July 2011 and March 2014 during which time he suffered a number of incidences of water penetration which appeared to come from the property above. He said that, as a consequence, his personal property had been damaged and that the house was not wind and watertight. He wanted to be rehoused. He complained that it was not until February 2014, when the problem was confirmed to be a systemic one probably related to the installation of cavity wall insulation a number of years previously, that he was offered permanent rehousing.

Our investigation showed that while there were a number of incidences of water penetration, on each occasion and within a reasonable time, the council had attended to complete remedial works. It was also shown that the problems at Mr C's house were not necessarily related to weather conditions and that the council had investigated potential areas of concern in an attempt to eliminate the problem. There were also difficulties with access, in particular to the neighbouring property where it was thought the problem was originating. A subsequent architect's report indicated that the cause of the problem was likely to be systemic and, therefore, Mr C was rehoused. We did not uphold the complaint.