Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C’s garden was affected by a flood. Three months later there were further problems when sewage started flowing into his back garden. Mr C claimed that the latter incident caused damage to the retaining wall in his back garden. He complained that Scottish Water delayed in identifying the cause of the problem, and that he had been told by an engineer on the job that the problem had arisen because the drainage system was not being maintained. However, when Mr C complained to Scottish Water and submitted a claim for the cost of replacing the damaged wall, his claim was turned down and he was told that the damage was caused by a neighbour’s drainage system (the earlier flood) and he would have to pursue the matter with the owner of the property. Mr C disputed Scottish Water’s advice that the second incident was due to unforeseen circumstances, unrelated to the damage to his wall.

Our investigation confirmed that there had been two separate incidents, and that Scottish Water had investigated and taken action to resolve both. After the second incident they had cleaned and disinfected Mr C’s garden. They had decided that his neighbour’s lawn should be replaced, but that as Mr C’s back garden was rough ground, no offer should be made to turf it. It was confirmed that Mr C had been advised to submit a claim to replace the damaged wall, but that with this advice he was told that this was not to be taken as an acceptance by Scottish Water of liability because the matter had to be investigated. As the evidence suggested that Scottish Water had considered Mr C’s claim, and explained the reasons why it was refused, this came down to a dispute about liability, which is not a matter that we can look into. We cannot establish legal liability, nor can we award compensation. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations.

Summary

Mr C complained that a blockage he had experienced in his home's water pipes was Scottish Water's responsibility and that flooding in his kitchen had been caused by flooding in a nearby car park.

Our investigation found, however, that Scottish Water had correctly told Mr C that the blockage was on his side of the pipe system and, therefore, not their responsibility, and also that the flooding could not have been caused by the car park flooding.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had not notified his business of high water consumption after his meter was read. He did not learn of it until he received the bill early the following month.

The reason for the high consumption turned out to be a water leak on his side of the water pipework, and, therefore, his responsibility to repair. Mr C considered that, if Business Stream had notified him promptly, he would have learnt of the leak earlier and could have reduced the consumption by repairing the leak.

Our investigation found that Business Stream's written policy was that they would try to notify customers where usage was significantly higher than usual. In this case, we were satisfied that the consumption was not significantly above previous readings but that, even if it had been, Business Stream's policy did not give any guarantee of notification. We did not uphold the complaint, as we found that Business Stream had not acted unreasonably in not notifying Mr C of the reading earlier.

Summary

Mr C, who represents a company, complained that Business Stream had charged the company for trade effluent waste without formal consent. He also said that the charges were based on an unreasonably high daily availability figure which did not reflect the average usage.

We found that consent for the charges had been in place for a number of years. We were satisfied that the charges were based on this and were calculated in line with Business Stream’s charging statement. In the absence of a request by the company to review the consent, there was no requirement for Business Stream to do so.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to remove his access to enhanced personal training (PT). This is a privilege that prisoners are able to access if they behave appropriately, attend work regularly and remain free from drugs. Mr C said the criteria for access to enhanced PT was to remain free from a positive drug test and not to incur any breaches of discipline. Mr C said he had not received either. In addition, prisoners were only allowed to miss one session of enhanced PT in a two week period and only genuine reasons for this were accepted (such as illness, attendance at court or a bereavement).

The prison said that Mr C had been removed from association with other prisoners for a month due to suspected bullying. He had been placed in the segregation unit and was unable to attend enhanced PT. In addition, the prison explained that the behaviour that led to his removal from association was considered to be unacceptable, and because of that, Mr C's access to enhanced PT was removed. The prison also amended the criteria to confirm that prisoners removed from normal circulation would have their access to enhanced PT removed for a period of two months.

It was clear the prison found Mr C's behaviour unacceptable and because of that his access to enhanced PT was removed. Based on the evidence available, we were satisfied that the prison appropriately exercised their discretion in deciding to remove Mr C's access to enhanced PT and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison's decision to remove his hi-fi was unreasonable. He said he had used the same hi-fi for many years. In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison said he could not have his hi-fi in use because it had a recording facility in it. They said Mr C would have to get this facility removed before he could have his hi-fi back.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we reviewed several prisoner notices and the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) electronic equipment protocol. The notices clearly stated that prisoners would need to pay to have recording facilities removed from any electrical equipment. In addition, the SPS protocol confirmed that prisoners would not be allowed to use hi-fis that had recording facilities. The prison confirmed that Mr C could have his hi-fi back in use if he paid to have the recording facility removed, but that, so far, Mr C had refused to do that.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was unreasonable delay in the prison generically assessing him. A generic assessment is carried out on individual prisoners to identify whether or not they are required to complete offence-focused programmes. In investigating Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that he had been generically assessed in line with the prison's process and there was no evidence of an unreasonable delay.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were failing to credit money, handed in for him, to his account within a reasonable timescale. We asked the prison to tell us what the process was. They confirmed that money handed in for a prisoner would be credited to their account the following day with the exception of Friday and Saturday. Money handed in on those days would be credited to a prisoner's account on the following Monday. Having considered the information available, we did not agree with Mr C that the prison were failing to credit money to a prisoner's account within a reasonable timescale and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in getting onto a behaviour-related course which he had been identified as needing. He was concerned that the delay could hold up his progression to more open prison conditions.

From previous complaints, we were aware that since a new type of assessment for courses had been introduced throughout the Scottish Prison Service, there was a backlog of people waiting for courses. This assessment was intended to benefit prisoners longer term but, in the meantime, the sudden high demand for courses had created a backlog. We were satisfied that the prison were doing what they could to prioritise places fairly and improve the situation. Therefore, although there was a delay in Mr C's case, we did not consider that the prison had acted unreasonably in relation to him.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour coursework. The prison explained that they prioritise prisoners in line with their key progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) dates. They assured him that he was on the waiting list and would be assessed in due course.

Our investigation found that Mr C had since been interviewed by the psychology team, so had now started the assessment process. We noted that he was not eligible for parole for over two years and that there was, therefore, sufficient time for him to access any required coursework. As we could see no evidence of unreasonable delay, we did not uphold the complaint.