Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

When Mr C, who is a prisoner, went into custody, the prison deemed him fit to work and required him to attend a work party. Mr C complained that this was not appropriate as before he went into prison he had been considered unfit to work, and had not since been assessed otherwise by a prison doctor. He acknowledged that he saw a doctor after going into prison, but said this only concerned his prescription and did not involve an examination or discussion about work. Mr C also said that guidance on his medication advised against working with tools or operating machinery.

In responding to our investigation, the prison said that a doctor had assessed Mr C after admission and deemed him fit for work. They said that the advice from healthcare staff was that there was no reason why prisoners could not work whilst on medication such as Mr C's, as long as they were not required to drive heavy machinery. Although Mr C did not appear to be happy with the medical assessment, this was not a matter for the prison. Their role was to ensure that Mr C was assessed by a doctor after admission to custody and the evidence we saw showed that they had done so. Once healthcare staff told them that Mr C was fit to work, we then considered it reasonable for them to require him to attend a work party.

Summary

Mrs C was issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN) for parking in a restricted area and obstructing the road. She complained to us that the council failed to give her the right to appeal the PCN to the parking adjudicator. In considering her complaint, the council explained that they followed the correct process when dealing with the PCN, and had no records of Mrs C requesting an appeal.

Our investigation was unable to obtain evidence from either party to support Mrs C's position. As we could not find additional supporting evidence that she had requested an appeal, we were unable to uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C owns, but does not live in, a flat which is in part of a tenement building. In the building there are 11 other flats occupied by a mixture of private owners and council tenants. One of the tenants on the top floor reported to the council that there was water coming in, and the council arranged an external inspection of the property. The inspection indicated that repairs were needed to prevent further water penetration.

As a co-owner, the council issued a notice of repair to all other current occupiers under the terms of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. This explained the broad legal position about repairs and offered three options for carrying these out. An estimate for the works was enclosed. It was made clear that there had to be a majority decision to proceed or a statutory notice for essential repairs might be needed.

Mr C said that he did not receive the council’s notices, and he complained to the council that they did not deal with the matter in accordance with their tenement management scheme. He also complained that he was unreasonably pressed by the council into making payment, despite his request for the matter to be put on hold while it was under investigation.

Our investigation found that the council had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation and their own procedures and, while it was accepted that Mr C did not receive the notices, we also accepted that these were posted to him, which completed the council’s obligations. Through their own investigation, the council had identified that there were some improvements that could be undertaken (for example, it was accepted that the description of the work contained in the statutory notices was not sufficiently accurate and they would be revising their processes in the future).

On looking into the issue of putting on pressure to make payment, we found that the legislation provided that once a majority decision was reached, it was binding on the owners and could be enforced by any owner against another. Accordingly, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) handled the tendering arrangements for a passenger ferry service. Mr C complained that SPT failed to consult appropriately before deciding to award a new contract, issued a misleading statement in their minute of a meeting, and failed to handle Mr C's complaints appropriately.

Our investigation did not find evidence to uphold Mr C’s complaints. We found that Mr C had not identified any specific duty on SPT to consult, and there appeared to be no obligation for them to do so before the tendering exercise, although they had surveyed passenger numbers and usages of services. Mr C had told us that he was also aware that in answer to an information request, SPT had said that there had been no consultation. He said that this contradicted a minuted statement by a councillor at SPT's March 2012 operations committee meeting. However, we found that the statement was not in fact made by a member of the committee but by a councillor of a local authority that the ferry served, who had been invited to address the committee. Finally, on the complaints handling matter, we found that in pursuing his complaint Mr C had asked for a prompt response. The chief executive had, therefore, intervened - he had provided a prompt response, thus cutting short the published complaints procedure. The reply was informative, and although it was not to Mr C’s satisfaction, we did not find it inappropriate and it did not disadvantage him.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not taken into account his mother’'s (Mrs A's) views and wishes when they decided to defer her application for sheltered housing for six months. We found that the social work department took this decision reasonably based on Mrs A's poor health, the fact that the decision would be subject to constant review given Mrs A was in hospital and thereafter in a nursing home, and that the application could be immediately reactivated should Mrs A's health improve. There was also evidence that Mrs A was assessed by a medical officer and a social worker, and had been found not to be able to make decisions about her own welfare at that time. We noted, however, that the council had sent a letter to Mrs A's home address referring to 'her' recent request to defer the application. This was inaccurate, as Mrs A had not made the request, and we asked the council to ensure that in future their correspondence was accurate.

Mr C also complained that the lock on his mother's council house had been changed against her wishes. The council explained they had changed the lock on instructions of a family member holding Mrs A's power of attorney. (A power of attorney is a legal document that appoints someone to act or make certain decisions on behalf of the person who has granted permission for this.) The council had been provided with the power of attorney documentation, and had accepted that that person was acting on Mrs A's behalf. They also provided different documentation which showed that Mrs A had asked the council to correspond with only that family member in relation to her affairs. On this basis, we found the council's actions in following the instructions of the power of attorney to be reasonable, and did not uphold the complaint.