Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C had a left knee and hip replacement several years ago. He attended the hospital's orthopaedic clinic (clinic for conditions involving the musculoskeletal system) around a year ago because he continued to have pain in his left leg and difficulty walking. He was discharged from the clinic, but was diagnosed around a year later with neuro-sarcoidosis (a chronic disease of unknown origin characterised by the enlargement of lymph nodes in many parts of the body along with nerve tissue dysfunction). Mr C complained that, despite his ongoing pain and difficulty walking, the orthopaedic consultant discharged him from the clinic without referring him to a neurologist (a specialist in the science of the nerves and the nervous system, especially of the diseases affecting them).

After taking independent advice from one of our medical advisers, we found that there was evidence that the consultant carried out appropriate assessments to test Mr C's reflexes and there was no clear indication of a neurological abnormality. Referral to a neurologist would not, therefore, have been necessary at that time. In addition, we considered that it was reasonable for them to have discharged Mr C, as it was not unusual for a man of Mr C's age to experience unsteadiness following knee and hip operations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision to remove his community access.

The prison took the decision to remove Mr C's community access because they had received intelligence (adverse information obtained by SPS that affects an individual prisoner) about him. Our investigation satisfied us that the prison had used their judgement in taking the decision to remove Mr C's community access. In doing so, they took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it. As this was a decision that the prison were entitled to take, and there was no evidence of anything wrong in the way it was made, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to hold sub-group meetings as agreed by the risk management team (RMT). The purpose of those meetings was to obtain consistent information from Mr C in relation to the circumstances of his offence. Mr C believed this was holding him back from progressing to less secure prison conditions.

Our investigation found that the RMT discussed Mr C's case in March 2012 and agreed that he would be reviewed monthly by a sub-group for a period of not less than four months. The prison confirmed that sub-group meetings were held to discuss Mr C in June, September and November. Because of that, we were satisfied the prison held the relevant sub-group meetings and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about a risk management team (RMT) meeting that was held to discuss his management in prison. Mr C complained that he was inappropriately denied the opportunity to submit representations to or attend the meeting. He also complained that he was unreasonably denied a copy of the minute (note) of the meeting and the prison was inappropriately monitoring his correspondence.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found nothing in the relevant Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidance to suggest that a prisoner is entitled to attend such a meeting. Rather, the guidance says that an appropriate member of staff will attend the meeting, and that this individual is responsible for ensuring that the prisoner is told about it. In addition, the guidance confirms that a prisoner will only be entitled to make written representation when their case has been referred to the RMT for progression purposes (progression is when a prisoner moves through the prison system to less supervised conditions). Mr C was not referred for that purpose and, so was not entitled to make written representations. We noted that, following Mr C's complaint, he was provided with a copy of the final RMT minute.

In relation to Mr C's complaint about his correspondence being monitored, the prison confirmed that steps were being taken to manage his correspondence with SPS more appropriately. The evidence suggested that Mr C was bypassing relevant members of staff and processes when raising issues and complaints. Because of that, staff were not able to deal with matters properly and were not being given the chance to try to resolve problems. The prison had, therefore, put in place an arrangement whereby Mr C's SPS correspondence would be managed more effectively to ensure that the issues he raised were passed to the relevant members of staff to deal with. In deciding this, the prison took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it, and, in Mr C's case, there was not.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the programmes case management board (PCMB) inappropriately considered historical information relating to his offending behaviour before deciding that he should participate in the violence prevention programme and the substance related offending behaviour programme. The PCMB are responsible for deciding what programmes individual prisoners should participate in.

In investigating this complaint, we reviewed all the information considered by the PCMB before they reached their decision. Before the PCMB will consider what programmes a prisoner should participate in, the prisoner is first generically assessed. We also reviewed the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) generic assessment guidance manual, which provides guidance to prison staff involved in the assessment process.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. In deciding that he should participate in these programmes, the PCMB took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it. Having reviewed all of the evidence available in Mr C's case, we were satisfied that the information the PCMB considered about him was appropriate and relevant. It was also clear from the information in the SPS manual that the PCMB were entitled to consider the information they did.

In addition, Mr C complained that the SPS inappropriately ignored recommendations of the parole board for England and Wales. We found that parole boards (in both England and Wales and Scotland) cannot tell the SPS how to manage a prisoner, although they can make recommendations about an individual prisoner's sentence management. The management of prisoners is the direct responsiblity of the SPS.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the programmes case management board (PCMB) considered false information before deciding what programmes he should be required to participate in. Mr C identified information in the record of the PCMB meeting which he felt was incorrect.

Before we investigated Mr C's complaint, the prison acknowledged that the PCMB had incorrectly noted that Mr C had committed a number of violent offences against different members of his family. Only a couple of those offences had been committed by Mr C against family members. However, the prison advised Mr C that the PCMB outcome was not affected because he still had the same number of convictions for violent offences.

As part of our investigation, we reviewed all of the information that the PCMB considered about Mr C before reaching its decision on what programmes he should participate in. In particular, we looked at the information Mr C still felt was incorrect. We were satisfied that information considered by the PCMB was relevant and appropriate and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about how the council handled their objections to a planning application that their neighbour submitted, which involved the demolition of an existing conservatory and the building of a single storey extension.

Mr and Mrs C submitted a letter of representation to the council objecting to the planning application because the planned extension included part of the mutually owned gable wall of the house. They were unhappy that the council did not take action against against their neighbour after they told the council that they were not notified of the proposed planning application, despite being co-owners of the main walls and roof of the divided house.

Mr and Mrs C were also unhappy that the wording of the development advisory note to their neighbour had been changed following a meeting of the development management committee, and that the council did not take appropriate action to correct the advisory note after it was drawn to the chief executive's attention.

Our investigation found that, whilst it appeared there had been an irregularity with the submission of the land ownership certificate by the applicant, we did not consider that it amounted to significant administrative error. Mr and Mrs C were able to submit their representations in relation to the planning application, which in turn were properly considered by the council. In relation to the advisory note, we established that such notes have no legal bearing and are outwith the scope of the formal legislative planning process. Therefore, we considered that the council had not acted unreasonably in amending the wording.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant consent to his neighbour to drop the kerb fronting his property to provide a paved area for parking. Mr C complained that the finished work did not comply with the consent or the assurances he had been given that action would be taken to rectify this, and said that the effect of this was a loss of parking space in an already congested street.

We found that the council had told Mr C at the time of his initial complaint that his neighbour's proposal was regarded as permitted development, and so did not require planning permission. Mr C was told that a permit would be required to lower the kerb. He complained to the council when the works were completed, saying that the final length of the actual dropped kerb was longer than he had been told would be permitted.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the council had investigated it and, from inspection of the site and discussion, had accepted the contractor's explanation for the decision to alter the length of the dropped kerb. When permission was given to drop the kerb, the width of the white access protection marking line was set at 4.5 metres. The council then decided that this could be reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.6 metres, to minimise the loss of resident parking space. The council had told Mr C this in their correspondence with him. We were satisfied that the council had considered his concerns and exercised their discretion in the matter in a reasonable and fair way.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a repair to a communal drain. He complained that the council had failed to treat it as a Right to Repair issue and should have compensated him £100 for not dealing with the repair quickly enough; had delayed in undertaking the repair; and in cleaning up the affected area; had failed to arrange for further work to the concrete slabs surrounding the sewer in the communal area; and that there was delay and inaccuracy by the council in responding to his complaints.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation established that this type of repair was not covered in the prescribed list of repairs to tenanted property under the Right to Repair scheme, as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We also found that the repair to unblock the drain was completed within the terms of the council's repairs policy; and as there is no specific timescale for cleaning repairs, and this was attended to within a short period of time, we did not find that there was delay in cleaning up the area.

The council told us that they had not been aware of Mr C's concerns about the condition of the concrete slabs before we contacted them about this, and it was later confirmed that this had been attended to. We also found that the council had responded to the complaint within the required timescales and, while there was a regrettable minor inaccuracy in the council's response to Mr C about the time and date for completion of the repair, it did not amount to a significant or material failure.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's property flooded on two occasions, once in 2009 and again in 2011. There was some uncertainty as to whether the flood water was rain or river water, however, as it was flowing onto their property via the public highway, they felt the council were responsible for taking action to prevent this. We identified that, in responding to the flooding reports, the council had surveyed the situation and taken steps to try to assist. We noted that they had attempted to have a neighbouring land owner address his private drainage system and they also carried out some clearance and repair works on the surrounding drainage. Following this, they were satisfied that the road drainage was fit to cope with normal conditions.

The council highlighted that responsibility for protecting their property from flooding lay with Mr and Mrs C and they offered advice on further steps they could consider taking to reduce the flood risk. The recently enacted flood prevention legislation requires the council to carry out clearance and repair works on bodies of water where they feel that this will substantially reduce the risk of flooding. In this instance, they were not persuaded that further clearance and repair works alone would substantially reduce this risk. This was a matter that the council were entitled to decide, and we cannot look at such a decision unless there is evidence of something going wrong in the way in which it was taken. We were satisfied that the council appropriately investigated Mr and Mrs C's concerns and took what we considered to be reasonable action to try to assist. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaints.