Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were refusing to allow him to buy the books he wanted. He claimed there was a complete ban on introducing literature into the prison.

We found that prisoners could ask to buy books, and that if the books were appropriate, and a prisoner had enough money, these could then be bought through the prison's authorised suppliers. We also found that the prison had made enquiries on Mr C's behalf about the books he wanted, and not all of these were available through authorised suppliers. Mr C could have those that were available, but would have to pay for them himself and, given the cost, he needed to save enough money to buy them. We found no evidence of a ban, and no evidence that the prison prevented Mr C from buying books.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had not put measures in place to assist with his special dietary requirements. He made suggestions to prison staff as to what might help overcome the problem and was unhappy that they did not respond favourably to these. He left his complaint hearing prematurely as he said it had become clear to him that help was being refused. He said that the complaints committee refused to follow this up by providing the reasons for the refusal in writing. He said that their written response merely noted the refusal and Mr C's failure to engage with them.

Mr C explained to us that his dietary requirements were the result of a medical condition, of which he could provide evidence. However, the prison told us that as they had not received this evidence, they did not consider that any special provisions were necessary. They acknowledged, however, that they should have given Mr C a written explanation of their decision and said that they would highlight this to staff.

In the absence of a medical instruction, we noted that it was for the prison to decide whether to put special arrangements in place for Mr C, so we did not uphold his complaint. We were critical that the complaints committee had not provided written reasons for their decision, but as the prison had already acknowledged this and taken steps to address it, we had no recommendations to make.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not handle his mail appropriately. He said he was given three items of legal mail several days after they were posted, and suspected the prison had held his mail back longer than they should have. Mr C also complained that items sent by him first class had been delayed in being issued. In response to Mr C's complaints, the prison confirmed there was no record of his mail being screened and the mail log showed the items were passed to him without delay.

We asked the prison to confirm whether any special measures were in place which resulted in Mr C's mail undergoing checks outwith the normal procedure. The prison said no such measures were in place and provided us with copies of the relevant mail log. This showed that Mr C's mail had been received in the prison and issued to him on the same day. As there was no evidence of inappropriate mail handling, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that obstacles were being put in the way of his progression through the prison system towards parole, including that he had been deselected from a rehabilitation programme. However, our investigation revealed that this was not the case and that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had been acting appropriately in relation to his progression. Decisions to deselect are for the SPS to take, but we can look at how the decision was made. We saw a lot of evidence of the reasons for the decision, and found that the SPS had taken it properly.

Summary

Mr C holds a licence issued by the council, and was interviewed after a complaint was made against him as a licence-holder. He complained to the council that he had not been told what his rights were at the interview and asked that they tell him what these were. At the end of their complaints procedure, he remained dissatisfied and complained to us.

We found that the interview was not a hearing to determine Mr C's civil rights and so there was no requirement to advise him of his rights at that point. We did not uphold this complaint. In relation to his other complaint, we found that the council had, in correspondence, advised Mr C of what his rights had been and so we did not uphold that complaint either.

Summary

Mrs C is the owner-occupier of a flat in a block of flats. She complained that the council did not give her enough information about the costs of a common housing repair that they carried out in the block.

We found that the council are Mrs C's property factors, and we are excluded from looking at factoring arrangements under schedule 4 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act. We did, however, look at their complaints handling and found that, although improvements could be made in how they responded to her initial queries, they had followed their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's investigation into a complaint he made about his child's primary school. His complaints included that the school did not put in place necessary meetings and that the council did not investigate his complaint properly. He also said that the council did not discuss his complaint with him before coming to their conclusions.

We found that some of Mr C's concerns were not complaints of service failure or maladministration, rather he disagreed with actions taken by members of staff, and their decisions. In addition we found that one of his complaints was premature as he had not put it to the council. We did not look at any of these matters.

In considering the complaints that we could look at, which were about the meetings and the council's complaints investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints as we found that meetings were held, and that the council investigated and contacted Mr C appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that City Parking (Glasgow) had ignored the findings of the adjudicator of the Scottish Parking Appeals Service. He was unhappy about an incident where a parking warden told him that he could not stop outside a hotel to collect luggage. On being warned he would incur a fine if he stopped there, he moved the car to a parking bay and paid for a ticket. He was unhappy about this because he had previously gone to the parking adjudicator about an earlier fine involving a similar issue. He had won that case and believed that this entitled him to stop on a single yellow line to load or unload passengers.

We found that while the council's interpretation of the traffic order differed from that of the parking adjudicator, each case is dealt with on its merits and the parking adjudicator's decision does not set a precedent. We also found that the parking adjudicator's decision did not give Mr C future rights under the traffic order that governs parking in the city.

Summary

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) has a severe form of autism (a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people) and significant learning disabilities. The council recognised that her current tenancy did not meet her needs, and awarded her additional housing points. They did not, however, offer her the tenancy of a vacant property that Mr C had thought suitable for her. The council said that they had in fact assessed the property to see if it met Miss A's needs, and decided that it would not do so long-term. Mr C complained that this decision was based on false information and that the council had offered no solution to Miss A's housing difficulties.

Our investigation looked at the council's housing allocations policy, records of Miss A's needs and housing assessments, internal council correspondence about her housing allocation, and social work case notes. We also asked for more information about the assessment. We found that the council had followed their procedures properly, and that a social worker and a senior occupational therapy practitioner had assessed the property. They had decided that although it would meet Miss A's needs in some ways, overall it was unsuitable and they could not recommend it for her. This was a decision for them to take and as we found they had gone about it properly, we could not question it.

Summary

Mr C said his home suffered from rising damp, which he said was affecting his family's health. He complained that the association had told him the problem was not rising damp but was caused by condensation and had provided advice on how to control and manage that. He was concerned when, after a visit to his property, he received a letter from the council's land and environmental services saying they could find no evidence of condensation dampness but they believed there might be an issue of rising dampness due to a defective pipe at the front of the property.

We found, however, that after this letter was sent, the association had arranged for the drainage to be checked, and that no fault had been found. They had also arranged for a specialist rot company to inspect the property. The company had found no evidence of rising damp but did note the presence of condensation, and the association had clarified this with Mr C. It turned out, therefore, that the way that the council's letter was worded had led Mr C to wrongly believe that there was a problem with rising damp.