Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the risk management team (RMT) identifying that he should participate in further group work. Mr C said he had advised previous RMTs that he had an outstanding need, and that his progression to less secure conditions had been approved by an RMT at a different prison despite this.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of his most recent RMT referral form. The RMT noted in their decision that new information was discussed and it was agreed that it was not appropriate to progress Mr C at that time. We asked the prison what new information was discussed. The prison confirmed that when Mr C transferred from another prison, his risk assessment was out of date. Because of that, an up-to-date risk assessment was carried out before the RMT considered Mr C for progression. The risk assessment identified him as being a moderate risk of re-offending. In addition, Mr C had previously participated in programme work but the post-programme report noted that he had not had the opportunity to address an element of this, which should be addressed in further treatment. Because of that, the RMT decided they could not support Mr C's progression to less secure conditions until he had addressed his outstanding need.

We noted that an up-to-date risk assessment was completed, and referral to the RMT happened, within eight months of Mr C arriving at the prison. Because of that, we did not agree that there had been an unreasonable delay.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison officer had written comments about inappropriate behaviour in Mr C's record. Mr C thought that the comments would have an adverse effect on his prospects, for example, with the Parole Board.

We were satisfied, from relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance, that it was appropriate and, in fact, expected that prison officers would record their observations about prisoners. The guidance made it clear that such comments were part of a wide range of information, collected from a range of sources and considered as part of a whole, rather than in isolation. The form on which the comments were written also had text printed across the top to the effect that any information on the form would be seen as a contribution and not assessed in isolation. We took the view that the officer had not acted inappropriately in recording the comments and that they should not, in isolation, affect Mr C's prospects.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was attending a course in prison. He considered that the course facilitator was not supportive when he had particular difficulties at one session. He also complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s reply to his complaint had inappropriately criticised him.

Our investigation concluded that the facilitator's actions had been reasonable. For example, Mr C had said the facilitator did not visit him afterwards to see how he was, but the SPS guidance does not require or expect this. We also noted that, as he had expressed a lack of trust in the psychology department during the session, it was arranged for the head of psychology and another psychologist to visit him a couple of days later. The SPS had had difficulties in managing Mr C's behaviour over a period of time, and against that background we considered that it was reasonable for their reply to suggest that he had a poor attitude to custody.

Summary

The programmes case management board (PCMB) is a group of prison staff who decide in which offending behaviour programmes a prisoner should participate. Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that communication of the PCMB's decision that he should take part in the Controlling Anger and Regulating Emotions (CARE) programme was unreasonable. In particular, he said that in responding to his complaint, the internal complaints committee (ICC)'s written response contained inaccurate information; the head of psychology had provided inconsistent information; and he had not been provided with a copy of a minute from the PCMB's discussion.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we found that the inaccurate information from the ICC had been the result of a typing error. We were satisfied that their investigation of Mr C's complaint was correct and based on information from him. On the information provided by the head of psychology, Mr C said he felt this was contradictory. However, our investigation found that there was sufficient evidence available to the PCMB to support their decision. We noted that the final decision on whether or not a prisoner is required to participate in a programme lies with the PCMB and we cannot question that decision.

Finally, we also looked at Mr C's concern that he had not been provided with a copy of a minute from the PCMB's discussion. The prison advised us that when the PCMB initially considered Mr C's case in December 2011, they decided that he should participate in three programmes. The discussion was minuted, and Mr C received a copy. He completed the first programme and went on to complete the second. Following that, the PCMB met again in December 2012. They discussed Mr C's participation in the second programme, and decided that he would still be required to participate in CARE. The prison said this meeting did not need to be minuted as the PCMB's decision that Mr C would be required to participate in CARE was originally communicated to him in December 2011. Instead, the outcome was recorded on Mr C's electronic prison record and the outcome communicated to him. In light of that, and the information obtained from our investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about his progress in prison. At his parole tribunal, the parole board had not recommended his release but agreed to review his case again in 18 months. His management plan, agreed at the time, said that he should progress to less secure conditions and participate in a work placement before the next tribunal. He later complained to the prison about a delay in progressing him to less secure conditions. In responding, the prison advised him that he had to wait for a space to become available. At the time of writing to us, more than three months after his parole tribunal, Mr C complained that he had still not been progressed to less secure conditions.

In responding to our enquiries, the prison said that Mr C had failed drug tests two months before his parole tribunal. They explained that, because of this, he did not meet the criteria for progressing until three months after the failed test (ie one month after the tribunal). As soon as he became eligible for progression, he was referred to the risk management team, in line with the standard process. The referral paperwork clearly stated that this process could take up to a further eight weeks. Mr C's case was reviewed by the risk management team within six weeks and he was approved for progression. He then had to wait for a space to become available in less secure conditions and he was progressed around two months later. We considered this reasonable in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were inappropriately deducting wages from him when he was not required to attend work. Mr C said that the relevant policy said that prisoners should not be penalised if work or activity was curtailed or unavailable due to operations reasons.

Our investigation into Mr C's complaint confirmed that he was employed in the timber assembly work party. Due to high demand within that work party, Mr C would be called to work on a rotational basis to ensure that no prisoners were disadvantaged. However, even when Mr C was not required to work, he still received his full wage payment. The evidence available suggested that the prison were paying Mr C appropriately and there was no evidence to suggest that this was not the case.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a local preservation trust about the actions of the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The trust had objected to an application to the local council for outline planning consent for a residential development. A planning officer recommended that the application should be granted conditional approval, but the application was refused. The developer appealed this decision to the DPEA. The council had told the DPEA that, should the DPEA's reporter be minded to grant consent, the conditions recommended by the council’s planning officer should be taken into account. Unfortunately, there was an error in the council officer’s report with reference to access to an adjoining field, in which the word ‘east’ had replaced ‘west’. The DPEA reporter visited the site and issued a letter with his intentions and proposed conditions. This included an incorrect reference to access being to the east. Six months later, after a legal agreement had been concluded, the DPEA reporter issued his decision granting conditional approval to the development. His decision repeated the error.

The error was brought to the DPEA’s attention more than six weeks after the appeal decision letter was issued. It was discussed with the reporter, who accepted the error, and sent a letter of correction to interested parties including Mr C. The letter confirmed that there had been a typographical error, substituted what the condition should have stated, and apologised for any confusion this might have caused. Mr C and an associate then pursued this with the DPEA over two years. Mr C first complained that it was inappropriate for the DPEA to have issued the letter of correction; and also that, when requested, they failed to notify all parties to the appeal that the correction letter had no legal status and did not change the original decision.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that, although recent planning legislation has introduced procedures to correct errors made by or on behalf of Scottish Ministers, this was not in place at the time of these events. The DPEA did not regard the error as significant, and on that basis issued the letter of correction. We found that issuing the letter was a proportionate and timely response and was in accordance with DPEA practice. On the second complaint, we found that such decisions can be referred to the Court of Session within six weeks. However, as the error was pointed out to the DPEA more than six weeks after the decision, that course of action was no longer available. We took the view that in the circumstances the legal status of the correction letter was a matter for those who received it and that there was no need for the DPEA to issue a further letter.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to properly investigate his complaints about what he considered to be dangerous fuel handling and storage by a boat operator at the local harbour. He complained that the council had sufficient evidence to show that the boat operator was storing large quantities of fuel at the harbour in inappropriate containers, and was not taking reasonable steps to ensure safe refuelling of his vessels.

We examined the evidence and found that the council were actively investigating the reports. They had reminded the boat operator of his responsibilities in terms of fuel safety and were monitoring the situation through the CCTV system. The council also prepared a code of conduct which they expect all boat operators to follow, and were in the process of recruiting a seasonal harbour master to monitor both adherence to the code of conduct and boat safety. As a result of the steps taken by the council, we were satisfied they had acted appropriately following receipt of Mr C's concerns about the unsafe handling of fuel.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council had responded to his representations to have tall trees on council land neighbouring his property trimmed. He was concerned that the trees could be dangerous in high winds, and that they blocked daylight into his property. The council had at one point told him that they would trim or remove trees that were not the subject of a tree preservation order (TPO). When, however, he complained that this had not happened, the council told him that all the trees in the area were in fact the subject of the TPO, and could not be touched. Mr C pursued his complaint, as he believed that the council could trim the trees for maintenance purposes, and was dissatisfied when the council maintained their position and would not trim the trees.

Our investigation found that the council had properly explained to Mr C that they could not trim the trees as it would be an offence to reduce the height of or remove branches from healthy mature trees that were subject to a TPO. The council acknowledged that Mr C had safety concerns about the trees, but said they had been inspected and there was no evidence of disease that might mean they posed a danger. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found no fault in the council’s handling of the matter, although we did think that they could have told Mr C earlier that the TPO applied to the whole area, rather than to individual trees. However, we decided that there were no grounds to pursue the matter further, noting that the council have arranged for their forestry manager to inspect the trees each year, and that they will take immediate action if any tree or branch shows evidence of disease.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to take steps to stop his neighbour from building a shed and decking area which did not have planning permission. When the neighbour then applied retrospectively for permission, Mr C complained that the council accepted poor quality drawings and plans relating to the proposal, that the officer who granted consent failed to carry out a site visit and failed to check the dimensions of the building after it was built. Mr C was also concerned that the building exceeded the permissible dimensions.

Having considered the background information, we found that when Mr C reported to the council that his neighbour was building in his garden, the council promptly carried out a site visit and, having reviewed the construction of a large garden shed, advised the neighbour that planning permission would be required. We noted that by requiring the neighbour to make a retrospective planning application, the council were giving them the opportunity to have the merits of the development considered by the planning department. We found this entirely appropriate. To seek to have the development removed, when it was possible that planning permission would be obtainable, would not have been a reasonable course of action for the council to have taken in this case.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Whilst the drawings which were submitted for the garden shed were not of a quality which would be produced by an architect, we found that they were sufficient for the type of development proposed, and complied with the relevant regulations. The council also provided evidence that they had visited the site and measured the shed. They were satisfied from this visit that the building was constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Although the officer who granted planning consent had not visited the site, a report of the development was produced by a fellow officer who had. Finally, we found no evidence to suggest that the shed exceeded any size restrictions.