Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream unfairly and unjustly pursued his charity for payment of water and waste water services. He claimed that Business Stream failed to respond to his request for a meter to be installed; unreasonably passed the matter to a debt collection agency, when he was still in discussion with them about the bill; and were wrongly pursuing the charity for payment of services that were the responsibility of their landlord.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the charity had not contacted a water services provider since they moved into the premises. Business Stream were, therefore, entitled to charge them for the services because they were the service providers before the previous tenant left the property. The property was not fitted with a meter, and Business Stream had correctly charged based on the rateable value. Although Mr C had asked for a meter to be installed, this was after Business Stream issued invoices for payment. They had explained to Mr C how to apply for a meter, but there was no evidence that he followed this up by submitting an application.

We did find that Business Stream had passed the charity’s account to a debt collection agency, but also that they had instructed the agency to put a hold on the account, and this was not done. The fault did not lie with Business Stream, and we noted that they took appropriate action once it came to their attention. Finally, although Mr C said that Business Stream failed to act on his advice that his landlord was responsible for some of the charges for services, we found no evidence that the landlord provided the necessary confirmation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that he loaned his digital radio to another prisoner, and the prison removed it from them. When Mr C asked for his radio back, the prison refused because they told Mr C it was not on his property card. Mr C complained that their decision not to return the radio was unreasonable.

When we investigated, the prison explained that Mr C did not have a digital radio shown on his property card. There was a radio listed on it, but it was a clock radio. The prison said the radio they removed did not match the description of the one on Mr C's property card and because of that, it would not be given to him. We were satisfied that the prison's decision not to give Mr C the radio removed from the other prisoner was reasonable and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his music system in use. Mr C said he had been given permission to have the music system sent to him, so he was unhappy that he could not have it in use.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison told us that Mr C had not been given permission to purchase the music system, and had arranged to have it purchased and sent to the prison without approval. They confirmed that they had looked at Mr C's music system after he received it, but that it exceeded the size of system that prisoners were permitted to purchase and have in use, and he was not allowed to have it. We were satisfied that the prison had appropriately taken a decision they were entitled to take and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison which outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately prior to him being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for progression to less secure prison conditions. It was previously proposed that he should only spend six months on a work placement and Mr C said this was agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison had taken account of the length of time Mr C had spent in closed prison conditions, and it was felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the fact that the parole board had agreed a management plan did not mean that the plan could not be changed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison, and outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately, prior to being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for less secure prison conditions. However, while in a previous prison, it had been agreed that Mr C should only spend six months on a placement. Mr C said his original management plan had been agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation found that the prison had taken account of Mr C's behaviour while he was in custody, and in the light of this felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to include his comments about his progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) in his integrated case management (ICM) record. In particular, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not progress him to less secure conditions and Mr C wanted his unhappiness about that to be noted so that the parole board could take it into account at his review.

When we investigated the complaint, the prison advised us that both Mr C's position and the SPS' position in relation to his progression had been noted in his ICM record. In addition, the prison confirmed that they had responded to Mr C's complaints about this and the position had been explained to him. In addition, we noted that Mr C would have an opportunity to speak to a member of the parole board before his review. Having taken account of all of the information available, we were satisfied that the prison appropriately noted the position in relation to Mr C's progression in his ICM record and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably refused the opportunity to progress to less secure prison conditions. He was told that this was because he had absconded (left without permission) from custody whilst serving a previous sentence 15 years ago. Mr C said it was unfair to take account of something that happened so long ago.

Our investigation found that the policy in place that deals with prisoners' progression confirms that there is a presumption against any prisoner returning to less secure conditions where there has been a previous abscond or escape. In Mr C's case, the prison noted that he had previously absconded and had also committed offences whilst in and out of custody. Because of that, it was decided that he should not be progressed to less secure conditions at this time.

We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take, having given appropriate consideration to Mr C's history.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a lost property claim for an item of clothing and two jewellery items. He suspected that they had been stolen by his cell mate. The prison did not uphold his claim, as they said valuable items were kept in use at his own risk and it was his responsibility to ensure they were kept in a safe. Mr C complained that he did not have access to a safe as there was only one working safe in his cell and his cell mate was using it. The prison did not uphold his complaints and repeated that items were kept in use at his own risk.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C explained that he was not given access to a safe, despite asking for this on numerous occasions. In responding to our enquiries, the prison confirmed that they were aware of problems with the safe in Mr C's cell but advised that he had declined offers to be moved to another cell. They also informed us that prisoners can access a safe storage facility at reception. We were, therefore, satisfied that appropriate alternative facilities were available to Mr C. We acknowledged that it would have been helpful for the prison to have referred to this when responding to Mr C's claim and subsequent complaints. However, we could not conclude that they had failed to take relevant information into account in deciding not to uphold Mr C's claim. From the information provided, we were also satisfied that the prison had taken reasonable steps at the time to investigate the alleged theft.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s decision not to release him from prison on the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme (this permits release of a prisoner with certain restrictions and with an electronic tag attached to his person for monitoring purposes). He said they had told him they could not release him on HDC because he was a recall prisoner. This meant that he had been serving a long-term sentence but had been released, with various conditions attached to the release. He had breached at least one of those conditions and had, therefore, been recalled to prison. Mr C complained that this could not be right as other recall prisoners had been released on HDC.

We advised Mr C that the circumstances of his recall meant that he was statutorily excluded from consideration for HDC and that the SPS had no discretion in this. If other recall prisoners had been released on HDC, that would be because they did not fall under any of the statutory exclusions as he did.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was reprimanded for playing cards in a work shed and dismissed from his work party. He complained that other prisoners were also playing cards and that he was singled out by a member of staff. He saw this as a form of bullying.

In responding to his complaint, the prison interviewed the staff involved and found that Mr C was dismissed because of his attitude to work. They concluded that no bullying had occurred. When we investigated, they told us that the dismissal was due to concerns about Mr C's general work performance. They said the fact that he had been playing cards, despite being asked not to, supported these concerns. We acknowledged that the prison were entitled to act on their concerns and concluded that they had reasonably exercised their discretion in taking the decision to dismiss Mr C. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained about the handling of his complaint. He complained about the time taken to respond, but our investigation identified that there was apparently a delay in the prison first receiving his form. Once they received it, they responded within the relevant timescale. Mr C also raised concerns that no witnesses were called upon during the investigation. We noted that the prison had arranged for two senior managers to speak with Mr C to discuss his concerns, and that there were discussions with the relevant members of staff to obtain their version of events. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold this complaint.