Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Ms C complained that Business Stream were unreasonably pursuing her for water bills in excess of the service she was receiving from them for a small art studio she was renting. She said that she did not have a water supply there, but did have shared use of a toilet and sink. Ms C also said that some tenants had only been billed for surface water and drainage and others had not been billed at all.

Business Stream had told Ms C that where there are several units with their own rateable value using the same communal facilities, this can be charged in one of two ways. The first is where a bulk meter is in place serving the full property. This can be invoiced directly to the property owner if they agree to this and each tenant then pays for their own property and roads drainage, with the property owner recouping water and waste water charges from the tenants through a service charge. The second is where there is not a meter, and each tenant is charged for the full unmeasured services based on the rateable value of the unit that they occupy. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had received from the property owner. This said that he did not want the water for the building to be metered. The property owner also said that they stressed to all tenants that their water rates were calculated using the rateable value of their individual studios.

We found that it had been reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Ms C's bill using the rateable value for the studio. This was in line with their billing policy and the rules that govern all providers in the non-domestic water industry in Scotland. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint. Business Stream also confirmed to us that they had not been billing tenants of the building consistently, and that they were taking action to resolve this. They had asked for the accounts of properties that were not being charged for water, waste water and drainage to be reopened, as they had been closed incorrectly.

Summary

Mr C said that, without explanation, Business Stream began billing him for water and water services. He said he tried to obtain an explanation, but was met with only further demands for payment. Mr C said that he eventually began making payment and also paid towards the arrears that had accrued, but Business Stream insisted that he pay the account in full. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable as Business Stream said in their documentation that they would allow payment terms. He said that, as the owner of a small business, he had been put under extreme stress and pressure.

Our investigation found that, although the first invoice sent to Mr C in April 2011 was incorrectly based on unmetered charges, it was quickly corrected after an employee phoned Business Stream about the error. The next bill, based on metered charges, was correct. Mr C did not pay anything, and over the next months Business Stream tried unsuccessfully to contact him. In late March 2012, they notified Mr C of their intention to discontinue his supply. Mr C then contacted Business Stream to say that he had not received any water bills and they sent him copies. However, Mr C paid only £250, and disputed what he should pay. He continued to do so despite further demands from Business Stream, and although they told him about the charges that would be added to his bill because of the delay in payment. Mr C then asked to pay his account over an extended period, but Business Stream refused, on the basis that he had only paid £250 since the corrected bill was issued in December 2011. We did not uphold his complaint, as we found that Business Stream had acted in accordance with their policy, which had been appropriately applied.

Summary

For three years, Mr C's business premises had operated without paying for water and drainage services because he had not identified a service provider and set up an account. When, after an audit, Business Stream became aware that the property was occupied, they issued Mr C with invoices for water and drainage services for the period of his occupation. Mr C asked to pay the bill in instalments. He then complained that Business Stream would not accept his offer and, when he found that he could not meet the payment plan he had agreed, unreasonably refused to agree to renegotiate it. He also complained that: Business Stream were unreasonable in not agreeing to revise their charges after he asked for a reassessment following the fitting of a water meter; that their charges did not reflect the probable usage; and that they had unreasonably refused to agree to take into account that his business premises were closed when there was a leak from an upstairs property, and a flood in his premises.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that when Mr C had not made payment as promised, Business Stream had told him that they were prepared to renegotiate his payment plan to extend the time for payment to 18 months, but he had not responded to this offer. They had told Mr C that they could not apply a retrospective reassessment of their charges, and this is consistent with our understanding of their process. Having considered their policy on what should happen when business premises are closed, we were also satisfied that Business Stream dealt with Mr C's request consistently under the relevant policy.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which Business Stream calculated the charges for water and waste services on a small studio he rented for his business, based on the rateable value of the studio. Mr C said that it had no water supply and the only water supply in the building was in common areas, which were the responsibility of the property owner. He said that the property owner agreed with him that he had been charged incorrectly.

Business Stream had told Mr C that if the property owner put a water meter in the building, they could consider removing the water and waste water elements from his charges, but this would only apply from the date the meter was installed. In response to our enquiries, Business Stream sent us a copy of an email they had later received from the property owner, saying that he did not want the water for the building to be metered. The property owner also said that they stressed to all tenants that their water rates were calculated using the rateable value of their individual studios.

We found that it had been reasonable for Business Stream to calculate Mr C's bill using the rateable value for the studio. This was in line with their billing policy and the rules that govern all providers in the non-domestic water industry in Scotland. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison were inappropriately failing to comply with the wage earning policy. Mr C was employed in the recycling party, and he described some of the tasks undertaken as being unpleasant. The wage earning policy confirms that bonuses are available for some work duties when the tasks undertaken are exceptional or unpleasant.

The prison told us that previously the recycling party did receive the bonus payment, but that after an audit it was found that bonuses were being paid for reasons not covered by the wage earning policy. A review was carried out and only those work parties carrying out the activities described in the policy then continued to receive the bonus payment. The prison decided the tasks carried out within the recycling party were not particularly exceptional or unpleasant and, because of that, the recycling party no longer received the bonus payment.

We found that the prison are responsible for deciding whether to pay the task related bonus to certain work parties and that they had explained why the recycling party did not meet the requirements. We were satisfied the prison were applying the wage earning policy appropriately and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately refused his request to send money from his prisoner cash account to his family.

Our investigation found that the prison rules say that the prison governor is entitled to decide the maximum amount of money that any prisoner may withdraw. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service's finance guidance confirms that, as a rule, the maximum amount a prisoner may send out will be no more than the amount he had when he arrived in prison. In Mr C's case, he did not any have money with him when he was admitted to prison. We were satisfied that the prison were authorised to refuse Mr C's request, and as we saw no evidence of administrative failure we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were failing to progress him in line with the risk management and progression guidance. That guidance outlines the procedures that should be followed by prisons when considering a prisoner for transfer to less secure conditions.

Our investigation found that Mr C is serving a life sentence, with a punishment element that does not end for a number of years. The guidance describes a four-year release phase, which can commence no earlier than four years before the expiry of the prisoner's punishment part. However, the guidance also says that policy describes a 'best case scenario', and that other factors such as a prisoner's supervision level and participation in offending behaviour programmes may affect the time of their release phase. In addition, the SPS have provided guidance to prisons on how to prioritise prisoners' access to offending behaviour programmes. This says that prisoners serving a life sentence will be prioritised depending on when the punishment part of their sentence expires, and we found that Mr C still had over seven years of the punishment part of his sentence to serve. We were satisfied the prison were preparing Mr C for progression to less secure conditions in line with relevant policies and, because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had a particular job in prison, which he said he had worked hard to obtain and which he enjoyed. He said that he had discussed some problems with a female member of staff but had then been accused of making inappropriate remarks to her and having an inappropriate relationship with her. He complained that he had, therefore, been unreasonably moved to a different job in the prison.

It is for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not for us, to decide how jobs in prison are allocated to prisoners. Our role was to consider the way in which they took the decision to remove Mr C from the job in question. Our investigation showed that they had had concerns about Mr C's comments to, and about, the officer. Given that, it was appropriate that they should consider removing him. In those circumstances, we would have expected them to have spoken to Mr C, and both his and the SPS' accounts showed that they had done so, making the reasons clear to him. They also decided that, because of his previous good behaviour, they would take no further action and would give him another job of equal status and pay, which was appropriate practice. We found no evidence that the SPS acted wrongly in making their decision, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C loaned some of his t-shirts to another prisoner and then transferred to another establishment for a short period. After his return to the prison, he asked staff to retrieve his t-shirts, but was told that the t-shirts were not on his property card. They had in fact been disposed of and could not be reissued to him. Mr C submitted a claim and a formal complaint but the prison maintained their position on the matter.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that the prison had not taken account of the information on his property card. He provided us with a copy of this, showing the t-shirts in question, and he said he had shown this to prison staff. We asked the prison if they had taken this into account, and they provided us with evidence that it had been reviewed as part of Mr C's claim. The card showed that the t-shirts had been signed into use by Mr C but that he had then given them to another prisoner. The prison explained that when this happens it should be done through the prison reception, with a request for the items to be removed from the donating prisoner's property card and added to that of the receiving prisoner. Mr C had not done this, and had not alerted staff to the situation at the time of his transfers. The t-shirts were found to be in the possession of the other prisoner but not on his property card and, as he did not tell staff that the t-shirts belonged to Mr C, they were disposed of.

As we were satisfied that the prison had taken account of all relevant information when responding to Mr C's complaint, and as it appeared the issue could have been avoided had Mr C followed the correct process, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, went on home leave from the prison for a week. Before doing so, he put clothes and other items in a sealed storage box. While he was on home leave, he was arrested and returned to another prison. When his belongings were forwarded to him at the other prison, he found that there were a number of items missing. He made a financial claim to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the missing items but this was refused.

Although we could not look at the outcome of the claim, we could look at how the SPS handled it and, in particular, whether they considered all relevant information in reaching their decision. Following careful review of all the paperwork provided to us, we considered that the most relevant information to be the list of items Mr C had in use before he went on home leave; the list of items noted as coming out of his storage box before being forwarded to him at the other prison; the list of items noted as received at the other prison; the claim form and investigating officer's report; and the information provided to prisoners about their responsibility for property in use. The SPS response to Mr C showed that all this information was considered when they reached their decision, and we did not uphold his complaint.

In the course of our investigation, however, we noted that at the heart of this complaint is that what Mr C said went into his storage box is not what came out. Normally, when a prisoner returns from home leave, they will be there to see the box being unsealed and opened. However, where the prisoner cannot be present, prison staff open the box, and in those circumstances there is potential for a prisoner to claim that items have gone missing. From our discussions with the prison, we understand that in practice, because of this, a storage box is opened and emptied in front of two members of staff. This practice is not referred to in the guide for dealing with prisoners who fail to return to the prison they were in and so, although we made no formal recommendation, we suggested to the SPS that they should consider including this so that it forms part of the formal process.