Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream unreasonably imposed fixed charges on her for a period during which she had not had a water supply. Business Stream did not dispute that the property's water supply had been turned off due to a leak, but said that Mrs C was still liable for the fixed charges on the bill. Mrs C said that the valve had been faulty and the meter had been the wrong type. She said that the valve would not open to allow water through the meter and that it had been manually adjusted by a Scottish Water representative when he attended the property. Mrs C believed that the meter and valve originally supplied by Scottish Water were not fit for purpose and that as she had no connection to the network she was not liable for any fixed charges.

Our investigation found that there was no evidence in the reports from Business Stream or Scottish Water representatives to support Mrs C’s account. The meter was described as fully operational and no mention was made of any adjustment or repair to the valve. The meter had been replaced so that it was lower in the ground, which would reduce the risk of it freezing during cold weather. We found it reasonable for Business Stream to conclude that Mrs C had had a continuous connection to the water network, and for them to apply fixed charges to her account.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being unfairly denied the opportunity to access an offending behaviour programme, for which he had been identified as suitable, within a reasonable time. Mr C was concerned that the criteria used by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to determine his place on the waiting list meant other prisoners were being given priority over him.

The SPS have a policy providing guidance to prisons on how to prioritise the allocation of prisoner spaces onto offending behaviour programmes. It confirms that spaces are allocated to prisoners according to their critical dates within their sentence. For example, Mr C is serving a life sentence and his critical date is the point at which the punishment part of his sentence ends. The policy also confirms that no prisoner type is prioritised over another. Having considered the evidence available, we were satisfied that the SPS were managing Mr C's access to the programme appropriately, in line with their normal procedure, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was alleged to have been involved in assaulting another prisoner. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) decided to remove Mr C from association with other prisoners while they investigated this and considered how to manage Mr C in future. Mr C complained about being removed from association, saying there was no evidence he had assaulted the prisoner and that his removal was unreasonably long.

It is not for us to decide whether prisoners should be removed from association. That is for the SPS and, where the removal is for more than 72 hours, Scottish Ministers. Our role in the complaint was to consider the way in which the decision was made (such as whether the SPS followed relevant procedures in making it), rather than the merits of the decision itself. We did not uphold this complaint as our investigation established that the SPS had followed procedures appropriately. For example, they obtained authorisation from Scottish Ministers, the correct paperwork was completed and Mr C was appropriately informed.

Mr C also complained that the SPS' internal complaints committee (ICC) did not let him call the witnesses of his choice to the hearing of his complaint about this. Such hearings are part of the SPS' complaints procedure, and a prisoner may ask for witnesses to be called to support their case. It is for the ICC chairperson to decide whether those witnesses can be called. If the chairperson decides to refuse the request, he or she must have discussed the matter with the prisoner before the hearing. Our investigation found that in Mr C's case, the ICC chairperson had acted appropriately and in line with procedures in deciding not to call Mr C's choice of witnesses.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately acted outwith the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) risk management and progression guidance by recommending that he should be assessed by a psychologist. Mr C told us that the guidance says that it was only the prison's risk management team (RMT) who could make that decision and he said he had not been referred to the RMT for some time. Our investigation found that the guidance confirmed that all referrals for a psychological risk assessment must be actioned by the RMT only. We obtained a copy of Mr C's referral form, and this confirmed that the RMT discussed and agreed the recommendation that Mr C should undergo an assessment.

Mr C also said that, after he complained, the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) recommended that he meet with someone from the psychology department to discuss the assessment, but the prison failed to action that recommendation. The prison told us, however, that after Mr C complained, the consultant psychiatrist who was going to carry out the assessment wrote to him to explain things a little further. After that, Mr C had confirmed he was happy to be assessed.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was involved in an altercation with another prisoner. Mr C said he was provoked into defending himself, and that he did so in line with guidance he was given on the prison’s violence prevention programme (VPP). Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not investigate the incident appropriately, and that the prison’s internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider relevant evidence and to follow procedures in reaching their decision.

The SPS explained that Mr C’s view on what he was taught at the VPP was not correct. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is guilty of a breach of discipline if they fight with any person. The prison had evidence from a member of staff that Mr C was fighting, and Mr C did not present any mitigating evidence at the time he was charged. We found no evidence that the SPS failed to investigate the incident appropriately. We also looked at the records for the ICC and found that they considered relevant evidence, and followed the correct procedures.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not follow procedures when they downgraded him from less secure conditions to more secure. He also complained about the prison’s handling of his complaint.

Prisons are entitled to decide to downgrade a prisoner when evidence is available to suggest that the prisoner may be unsuitable for less secure conditions. We found that the prison followed the proper process and considered all relevant information before deciding to return Mr C to more secure conditions. We were also satisfied that their handling of Mr C’s complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

When Mr C bought his home, the road outside had a number of speed cushions to slow down traffic. Some years later, the council decided that the road needed to be resurfaced. When they checked the condition of the speed cushions, they found that these had deteriorated and could not be reused. In the months immediately following the resurfacing, temporary vehicle activated speed signs were installed, and speeds and traffic volumes were monitored. The council then consulted on the re-introduction of traffic calming measures, but found that there was significant opposition to their specific proposals. Knowing the range of public opinion, senior roads officers met with local councillors and agreed a revised scheme with fewer speed cushions. At the time, they obtained legal advice that they did not need to consult again on the revised proposals, and the new traffic calming measures were installed.

Mr C was not living in the property when this happened, and when he returned he found that traffic volume and speeds had increased, and there was excessive noise in his home. He complained to the council about the changes, and made various information requests. He then complained to us that the council had not taken the appropriate steps when considering and implementing the new measures, and had failed to act on collected data which indicated that the measures that they had put in place were inadequate.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints, as our investigation found that the consultation was extensive and appropriate. We also found that since the measures were introduced, council officers had examined the results of two further monitoring exercises and found no reason to amend the scheme. This was a decision for them to take as professionals, and not something that we could consider where there was no evidence of maladministration in the taking of the decision.

Summary

Mr C complained to the council about unauthorised development activity at a property close to his. A retrospective planning application was submitted and recommended for approval, but was refused by the planning committee. Mr C complained to the council about various aspects of their handling of these matters, and when he was dissatisfied with the response he received he complained to us. We decided that most of his complaints were not matters we could consider as they related to his unhappiness with the council's actions rather than being complaints of maladministration or service failure (ie complaints that the council had handled this wrongly).

We did consider his complaint that the council's complaints handling was unreasonable because the chief executive did not provide specific evidence to support his statements about meetings held or the consideration given to the matter. We did not, however, uphold this, as we found that the chief executive responded directly to Mr C's complaints and gave reasons for his decisions, which we considered reasonable.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C objected to planning applications for a wind farm near their home. They then complained to the council that the planning service had not given appropriate consideration to the potential resulting impact on their amenity (enjoyment of their property or surroundings) from the wind turbines. Mr and Mrs C expressed particular concerns relating to the land they use for recreational activities as part of their property.

The council explained that they had given appropriate consideration to protecting Mr and Mrs C’s amenity and that the land in question, although owned by Mr and Mrs C, did not appear, on the balance of probability, to have a lawful use as domestic curtilage (the essential garden ground for the property).

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the actions taken by the council were in line with relevant guidance and that their response to Mr and Mrs C’s concerns was reasonable. We also found that it was reasonable that the council did not consider Mr and Mrs C’s land’s use as amenity ground when considering a planning application for the wind farm.

Summary

Mr C complained to the board that he had concerns about the validity of an application to provide a community pharmacy in his local area. The board responded that the applicant had fulfilled the criteria to allow the application to proceed to the next stage of the approval process. Mr C complained to us that the board failed to address his concerns about the competency of the application.

We found that, technically, the board had acted in accordance with the procedures although we did think that they could have provided Mr C with additional information - ie that his concerns would be considered by the committee considering the community pharmacy application in due course.