Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably removed and disposed of his football boot laces. This happened after staff searched his cell. Mr C said he was allowed to have his laces in use and there were no grounds for staff to dispose of them.

The prison advised us that staff removed Mr C's laces and disposed of them because it was suspected that he was using them as a 'line'. This is an article constructed from pieces of material, which prisoners can then use to pass items between cell windows on the outside of the building. The prison explained that using an authorised item of property in an unauthorised way could mean that such items are removed and disposed of. This is what happened in Mr C's case.

We were satisfied that the prison had taken a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take and that in the circumstances we could not question it. It was clear there were reasonable grounds for the prison to remove and dispose of Mr C's laces and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably denied access to offending behaviour programmes that he had been identified for. Mr C is serving a life sentence and the punishment part of his sentence expires in late 2017. Mr C said that the earliest that he could hope to progress to less secure prison conditions was late 2013, but that he would be unable to progress because he had not been given access to the relevant offending behaviour programmes.

The prison told us that life sentence prisoners' entry onto the programme Mr C was waiting to access is prioritised by the expiry date of the punishment part of their sentence. In Mr C's case, this was more than four years away. In addition, Scottish Prison Service guidance on the management of life sentence prisoners describes a four year 'preparation for release' phase, and this can start no more than four years before the expiry of the punishment element of the sentence. The guidance, however, confirms that the four year release phase describes the best case scenario and that other factors can affect the timing of this. One of those factors is a prisoner's participation in offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the guidance says that, following the expiry of the punishment element of the sentence, Scottish Ministers would not necessarily insist that a life sentence prisoner complete the full four year release phase.

We were satisfied the prison were prioritising Mr C's access to his identified programmes in line with the relevant policy and it was clear there was still enough time remaining for him to access the programmes. Because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to have a particular item in prison. It is not for us to tell prisons what items they should allow, so our role was to consider whether the prison correctly followed their policy about items that are allowed there. We checked that the item in question was not on the prison's list of allowed items, and advised Mr C that, as it was not on that list, the prison had followed their policy and acted correctly.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that, when he failed to return to prison after being out on a period of home leave, he was placed in closed prison conditions rather than his usual open conditions.

It is for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not us, to take decisions on the management and risk assessment of prisoners. Our role in this case was to consider whether the SPS had acted in line with their procedures and practices. In this case, we were satisfied that they had done so. For example, it was clear that consideration was given to Mr C's behaviour history on previous home leave periods and his behaviour at the time in question, before deciding that he should not be returned to open prison conditions. They also kept him reasonably informed about what was happening. The SPS did make one error, in not giving Mr C the chance to comment on the report of the incident after interviewing him. However, on realising the error, they apologised to him, gave him the chance to comment, and took action to help avoid a recurrence. On balance, we were satisfied that the SPS acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison officers opened an item of his incoming post when he was not present. Our investigation found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are permitted to open personal post in certain circumstances, such as when they have reason to believe that an item might contain something illicit, such as drugs. In this case, Mr C's envelope had an unknown shape inside it, which meant that staff did a risk assessment and decided to open the envelope under controlled conditions. The envelope turned out to contain a card.

Security and risk assessments are a matter for the SPS, not for us. Our role was to consider whether they acted reasonably in dealing with the situation, and we were satisfied that they had done so. In this case, they had reason to believe that the envelope might have contained something inappropriate. Although the prison rules do not specify that post can be opened without the prisoner being there, neither do they say that the prisoner should always be present. We were also satisfied with the information that the SPS supplied about the need to open suspect packages under controlled conditions. In conclusion, we were satisfied that the SPS had acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to use his electric typewriter in prison. He said that he had previously been in another prison, where he had been allowed to use it. He also felt that the prison had not responded properly to his complaint about this.

Our investigation found that it is national Scottish Prison Service policy not to allow in use electrical items with the potential to connect with the internet or each other. Mr C's typewriter had a similar function, and so fell within the policy, which we found had been correctly applied in the prison. We were also satisfied that the prison had responded appropriately to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) legal laptop policy inappropriately restricted his access to a laptop computer. The policy sets out the circumstances and conditions under which access to a laptop may be granted to prisoners. In particular, Mr C was unhappy because the policy restricted the use of the laptop to those prisoners preparing their defence against charges.

In responding to Mr C's complaint, the governor had confirmed that the laptop was reserved for those prisoners preparing their defence or preparing their appeal against conviction or sentence. Our investigation found that this position was clearly in line with SPS policy. We were satisfied that the SPS are entitled to decide under what circumstances and conditions prisoners may be granted access to the laptop, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mrs C planned to open a food takeaway and sought pre-application advice from the council about this. The council gave advice, which was generally positive about the plan, but made clear that it was given without prejudice to the assessment of a formal planning application. When Mrs C submitted her formal application, it was refused. Mrs C felt the pre-application advice should have alerted her to the basis upon which the application was ultimately refused.

As our investigation found that pre-application advice is not required to be exhaustive and that the advice received in this case was reasonable, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council's planning department had not taken action to prevent his neighbour from erecting a garden shed in the wrong place. He felt the council should have taken earlier action because Mr C had made it clear to them where his neighbour had erected an area of decking, which would later be used as a base for constructing the shed. The council explained their role in planning enforcement and advised that at that stage there was no breach of development control that would allow them to take action. When Mr C's neighbour did build the shed in the wrong place, the council promptly took steps to ensure that it was relocated to the site approved under a certificate of lawfulness.

Having considered the council's response to Mr C's complaint and their actions, we were satisfied that they had acted appropriately.

Summary

When Mr C's neighbour was granted planning permission for an extension to his house in 2007, he objected to the application. His objections were considered and responded to in the planning report.

In November 2011, after the development started, Mr C complained to the council that the application was not reasonably considered. The council replied but Mr C was dissatisfied with their responses and complained to us that no impact assessment had been carried out and that the drawings submitted with the application had not been accurate. As part of our investigation, we obtained independent advice from a planning adviser. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as we found that the council had acted appropriately within their professional discretion.