Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being unfairly denied the opportunity to participate in his identified behaviour programmes. He was concerned that he would not be able to complete these and progress to open conditions in time before his parole qualifying date. (This is the date when a prisoner becomes eligible to be considered for release by the parole board.)

The prison explained that prisoners are placed onto the programme waiting lists in progression date order. (The progression date is when a prisoner can become eligible for consideration for progressing to less secure conditions.) They said that Mr C had been placed on the relevant waiting lists in line with that process, and he would access the programmes when he reached the top of the lists. We did not uphold his complaint, as we were satisfied that the prison had placed Mr C on the waiting lists in line with their procedure.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about aspects of a review of his supervision level, after he was involved in a fight at the prison. He previously had a low level of supervision but, following the fight, this was reviewed and increased to a high level. He complained that, as part of the review, a prison officer had inappropriately accessed his medical records and used information from them without his consent in the review of his supervision level. The prison had told him that medical records are the property of the NHS, not the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and are kept by NHS staff in the prison healthcare centre, to which the prison officer would not have had access.

Our investigation noted this, and that there were various other ways in which the prison might have obtained the information used in the review, including the possibility that Mr C himself might have told the officer. As it was not possible for us to establish the facts about this, we found no grounds to uphold that part of his complaint.

In terms of this information being used, we noted that the review form specifically asked, amongst other things, for comments about the issue in question. That meant that such information was not regarded as confidential, and it followed from this that a prisoner's consent was not required before such information could be used on the form. Therefore, the SPS had not acted wrongly, and we did not uphold that part of Mr C's complaint either.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a complaint to the governor in which he made an allegation of assault against an officer. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that the prison failed to appropriately communicate the outcome of the investigation to him.

We contacted the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about Mr C's complaint. They confirmed that they contacted the police about the allegation, who discussed it with Mr C, and advised the prison that he had withdrawn his complaint. In addition, CCTV footage was reviewed which showed no assault had taken place. Because of that, the police took no further action and the prison did not conduct an internal investigation because there was no evidence that an assault had taken place. The SPS confirmed Mr C was aware of that through his discussions with the police and with relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was removed from his job and allocated another role. He complained about this and was told that the decision had been taken after intelligence was received that indicated he had been involved in subversive activities. Mr C was not happy about this and brought his complaint to us.

The Scottish Prison Service provided us with a copy of the intelligence held on Mr C. We recognised their entitlement to act upon this, and were satisfied that they took their decision to remove Mr C from his job after considering relevant information. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that his family were having trouble booking visits to see him. Visits are arranged by phone, and Mr C felt the system was inadequate. In responding to the complaint, the prison told Mr C that they had recently installed a second phone line to try to improve the system.

As part of our investigation, we asked the prison what action they had taken to monitor the effectiveness of the booking system after installing the new phone line. They said that after receiving a number of complaints about difficulties booking visits, they had installed the second line. Since doing this, they said the number of complaints had reduced. The prison acknowledged that both lines can still be busy at times, especially on Mondays as the lines are closed over the weekend. They explained, however, that when someone gets through they are able to book visits for the week ahead, ie more than one visit can be booked at a time.

From the evidence observed, we were satisfied that the prison had identified a problem with the system and had taken reasonable steps to try to improve it. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we told Mr C that he could come back to us if his family continued to experience problems after they had had sufficient opportunity to trial the improved system.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison governor about the monitoring and recording of phone calls to the mobile numbers of two of his legal representatives. Mr C asked us to consider whether the prison had appropriately handled his complaint about this.

In responding to the complaint, the governor specifically referred to one of Mr C’s representatives but not the other. Mr C was not happy with this and felt that his complaint had not been fully addressed. Although the prison acknowledged that this was an oversight on their part, they explained that the position was the same for both individuals. They noted that there had been longstanding correspondence on the matter and that Mr C was aware of the position. Whilst unfortunate, we did not consider that the omission of specific reference to both individuals had a negative impact on Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a visitor to an elderly friend (Ms A) in a care home. He was concerned about her welfare and raised questions about this, but they were not answered and he was told he was no longer welcome to visit. He complained to the Care Inspectorate, who looked into the matter, but then told him that they were satisfied that matters had been handled properly and that his complaint was not something they could look at. They said that they had been in touch with social services and the welfare guardian with power of attorney for Ms A, and neither had expressed any concerns about her care. Mr C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate had unreasonably failed to answer his concerns about Ms A.

After investigating the complaint, we were satisfied that the Care Inspectorate had properly looked into Mr C's concerns, and were, in the circumstances, quite correct in not providing him with information about Ms A. He is not related to her and she has a welfare guardian with responsibility for her wellbeing and her affairs. We noted that the welfare guardian, who is regarded as speaking for Ms A, had said that they did not want Mr C to visit again.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for a proposed road development. He was concerned about the environmental report used in public consultation. He considered it to have been unclear and inaccurate, and said that the council should re-run the consultation. Mr C was also concerned that the environmental report did not take into account issues such as potential flooding and noise. He said that the council had also exaggerated the negative impact of one of the options to ensure that it was not selected.

We found that the council had taken Mr C's comments into account. They amended the report to reflect his comments about inaccuracies and corrected typographical errors. They also took steps to ensure clearer map information in the revised report. The council consulted with the appropriate agencies before preparing the report and we were, therefore, satisfied that they had included the necessary environmental issues in it. We also noted that the SEA was only one part of a process of environmental reviews to be carried out. While we noted the option Mr C favoured, and the amendments to this option that he suggested, we also took account of the council's statement that a number of options were selected at an earlier stage, using similar processes. We found no evidence to support his view that the council deliberately tried to ensure that this option had a higher environmental impact than necessary.

Summary

Mr C complained about storage and collection of household waste at the building where he lives. He was unhappy that when he asked about providing a bin store, the council had said he and other residents should pay for this. Mr C was also unhappy that the council said that they had to present their bins at the kerbside for collection, which he said was a change to the existing arrangement.

Although Mr C was unhappy with the council's responses, we did not uphold his complaints. Our investigation found that, as Mr C lived in a private development, there was no obligation on the council to pay for a bin store. We also found no evidence that the council had changed the existing arrangement.

Summary

Residents complained that the council unfairly declined their request to have a tree, which was affecting their amenity, pruned. They were especially unhappy because the council had carried out maintenance on the tree in the past. The residents said that they had obtained their own survey from an independent tree surgeon, who had told them that the tree could be pruned without affecting its health.

Our investigation found that the council surveyed the tree in 2008, and again in 2012 in response to the residents’ complaints. On both occasions they decided that it was in a fair condition, and did not need any work carried out. Although the survey undertaken by the council differed from what the residents said they had been told, we were unable to uphold the complaint because this came down to a matter of professional opinion. There was nothing to show that, in declining the residents’ request, the council failed to take into account relevant information.