Not upheld, no recommendations

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.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the delay in allocating him to a rehabilitation course. Mr C was unhappy that the course he was scheduled to attend did not go ahead and that the proposed rescheduled date would impact on his chances of early release on parole licence. When the parole board met to discuss Mr C’s case, they acknowledged that he needed to undertake the course and be tested in open conditions before being considered for release. A further parole hearing was, therefore, arranged several months later to allow for this.

Our investigation found that the prison were unable to run the course when they said they would because there were not enough participants for it to go ahead. The prison explained that on average, there is a 20 percent drop-out rate and that all courses are terminated when reduced to four participants. The option of completing the course in another prison or in the community was considered but this was not possible. The prison, therefore, took steps to interview individuals for the course over a six week period. This resulted in more participants being identified and allowed the course to start about eight weeks later.

Mr C completed the course three months later and his review by the parole board was brought forward by a couple of months where his release on parole licence was approved. Being mindful that the prison have limited resources, in Mr C's case we did not consider it was unreasonable for the prison to reschedule the course because it needed more participants. We also found that the eight week delay was not in itself unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is Mr A's representative, complained that there were inaccuracies in the report of a social work complaints review committee meeting, that was presented to the housing and social work services committee. He wanted to correct minor factual accuracies concerning Mr A's title and age. He also disagreed with some of the findings of the report and said he had not received a response to his letter highlighting the inaccuracies.

We found that, in accordance with council procedures, Mr C's comments were appended to the report for consideration by the committee. The council provided a copy of the information presented to the committee and it included Mr C's comments as appendix three to the document. The minutes of the social work services committee meeting also recorded that the report presented to the committee 'included comments from Mr A's representative’ and was approved. We were satisfied that Mr C's comments were heard and taken into consideration by the committee in deciding that the recommendations of the sub-committee be approved and told Mr C we would not be pursuing his complaint any further.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way in which the council dealt with a request for approval of matters specified in the conditions of a planning permission. In particular, he said that the council had not informed members of the public about changes in planning guidance; had not given proper consideration to the objections he and his neighbours made; and failed to take account of access and turning arrangements in and to the site concerned.

We investigated the complaint and took into account all the information provided by Mr C and by the council (including the complaints file, complaints procedure and relevant policies). We also obtained independent planning advice and made further inquiries of the council.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation confirmed that changes to the planning guidance concerned had taken place after a period of consultation, and met pre-agreed criteria. Although Mr C considered that further consultation should then have taken place, this was not a requirement of the planning legislation. Also, the documentation confirmed that the council had given due consideration to Mr C and his neighbours' representations but, still, decided to grant approval. They were also satisfied that the developer provided sufficient information to demonstrate that access onto and within the site was satisfactory. Although Mr C provided his own professional advice which demonstrated the contrary, this was not provided until after the application was decided.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council responded to his complaints about the care provided by the council's social work services, and in particular by his son's mental health officer. His complaint had been considered by an independent complaints review committee hearing, as required by the statutory social work complaints procedure.

We reviewed the process the council followed and were satisfied that they had investigated and responded to his complaint in line with the social work complaints procedure. As a result, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the council's handling of a planning application and an application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC). Mr C felt that the report on the planning application was misleading and did not express balanced views. He maintained that Historic Scotland had expressed concerns about the development but that these were not included in the planning report or the CAC report. During our investigation the council confirmed that it was their responsibility as planning authority to determine applications and that there was no statutory requirement to consult with Historic Scotland on applications for CAC or planning permission. There was only a statutory duty to notify Historic Scotland of the council's proposed decision on CAC. However, in terms of best practice they had informally consulted Historic Scotland on the CAC application. When commenting on this, Historic Scotland had raised some concerns about the development, and while the council confirmed that these concerns were considered as part of the planning process they accepted that the concerns raised by Historic Scotland should have been reflected in the CAC application report.

After taking independent advice from a planning adviser, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that the report on the application demonstrated that all planning considerations had been fully considered, as had the issues raised by Historic Scotland. However, we felt that Historic Scotland 's comments should have been included in both reports and we drew our views on this to the attention of the council.

Mr C also said that the council had unreasonably sought comments from Historic Scotland after the applications had been determined. We were satisfied that, in line with procedures, the council had notified Historic Scotland of their intention to grant consent for a CAC application after the committee meeting, giving Historic Scotland the opportunity to call-in the application if they disagreed with the council's decision. In this case Historic Scotland did not call the application in to Scottish Ministers. While we did not uphold the complaint, we drew to the council's attention that it would be good practice for the report on the CAC application to have explained that the decision to grant consent would be subject to notification to Historic Scotland.