Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy that he was not allowed to use puzzle books that were handed into the prison for him by a friend.

Our investigation found that prisoners are not allowed to have reading materials handed in for them by family or friends. This is because it is possible for prohibited items to be hidden in the pages of reading materials. Instead, prisoners must purchase reading materials themselves through the prison's approved supplier scheme. By only allowing reading materials purchased through that scheme, the prison are able to increase the security and good order of the establishment. In addition, the prison rules confirm that the governor could refuse to allow a prisoner to have in their possession or keep in their cell any items that the governor considered to be damaging to the security and good order of the prison.

We were satisfied the prison had appropriately exercised its discretion in taking the decision not to allow Mr C to have access to the puzzle books handed in for him by his friend and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to reduce his wage banding (prisoners' work output is assessed against three performance standards). Mr C said he produced good quality work and he felt he should be on the higher banding. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that his wage had been reduced because of the quality of his work, and said that staff were entitled to move prisoners within the performance bandings. In response to our investigation, the prison explained that prisoners could be promoted or demoted depending on their work standards, behaviour, attendance etc. The prison confirmed that this also acted as a motivational tool for prisoners. They said that Mr C had been demoted because they felt the quality of his work could be improved. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied the prison had made their decision appropriately, after considering the relevant information.

Mr C also complained that the internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider his complaint appropriately. He said the ICC did not meet with him to discuss his complaint. We found, however, that the ICC tried twice to meet with Mr C to discuss his complaint, but Mr C chose not to meet them because he was at work. Because of this, they discussed Mr C's complaint in his absence. In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the ICC considered Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a request to be transferred to another European country to serve the remainder of his sentence. He complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing his application.

Our investigation found that the evidence showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) sent Mr C's application and the required documentation to the relevant European authority in April 2011. When they heard nothing after four months, they contacted the authority again and there was correspondence between them about what was needed to effect the transfer. More recently, however, the SPS had tried several times to contact the authority to try to progress Mr C's application, but had received no response. Mr C is not a national of the country involved, and because of that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (international guidance on transferring prisoners to their home countries) does not apply in his case. This meant that there was little more the SPS could do to progress this.

We recognised that Mr C's application had been ongoing for some time but found that the SPS had been taking steps to try and progress matters, despite there being no obligation on them to do so. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the way the prison were managing him. Mr C said he was a short-term prisoner but the prison were managing him as a long-term prisoner. Mr C also said he had been inappropriately subjected to a generic assessment which was normally only carried out on long-term prisoners. A generic assessment identifies whether or not a prisoner should participate in offending behaviour programmes.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that Mr C was sentenced to four years and four months in prison. In line with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)' normal policy, those sentenced to four years or more are classed as long-term prisoners and those sentenced to four years or less as short-term prisoners. Mr C was released from prison after serving half of his sentence but was then recalled to custody to serve the remainder of his sentence. Because Mr C's original sentence was more than four years, he was again managed by SPS as a long-term prisoner when he returned to prison. Mr C's situation was complicated by the fact that before his original sentence expired he was sentenced to a further six months and 32 months. That meant that when his original sentence expired, Mr C then became a short-term prisoner. In relation to the generic assessment, the relevant guidance confirmed that a prisoner can be the subject of a generic assessment if it appears that their level of risk of reoffending indicates that they would benefit from completing offending behaviour programmes. The prison also told us that Mr C consented to being generically assessed.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint and we were satisfied that he was being managed appropriately by the prison.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Public Standards Commissioner about the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). The issue concerned a complaint about the SLCC's predecessor organisation, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO). Mr C complained to us that the Commissioner did not respond to all of his allegations or look at specific evidence; looked into matters he should not have; and did not respond properly to all the issues raised in Mr C's letters.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We looked at the law that set up the Commissioner's office and their investigation guidelines. Our investigation found that there was no obligation on the Commissioner to respond in detail to every matter raised in a complaint. From looking at the records, we also found that the Commissioner explained why he could not look at all Mr C's allegations. He also explained to Mr C that the matters raised could not amount to a breach of the SLCC's code of conduct. Although Mr C disagreed with this, we found that the Commissioner's actions were in keeping with the investigation guidelines and were reasonable in the circumstances. We also concluded that his written responses to Mr C were reasonable.

The Commissioner's office had requested a copy of an SLSO opinion from Mr C because it was a key document that Mr C mentioned in making his complaint. The Commissioner referred to the opinion in correspondence with Mr C for the same reason, and because it was central to the origin of Mr C's complaint. We found that requesting a copy of the opinion and referring to it in correspondence did not constitute an investigation. The Commissioner told Mr C he had carefully examined all of the information. He did not say he had examined all of the information about the SLSO's opinion. We understood the Commissioner's statement to mean that he examined all of the information provided to him, which we concluded was reasonable.

Summary

Ms C operated a small business from a kiosk in a shopping centre. She had a water meter and paid her landlord for water and waste water. Business Stream sent her a bill for property and roads drainage based on the rateable value of her kiosk. She did not consider this was correct as her kiosk was entirely within the centre and had no separate roof or roads which required to be drained. She thought that Business Stream were charging more than once for drainage of the same water. We found, however, that Business Stream had charged her in line with their billing policy and on the same basis as the other tenants in the shopping centre. We did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) (including the Lord Advocate) had failed to adequately respond to correspondence from him. Having carefully reviewed the correspondence between Mr C and the COPFS, we were satisfied that the responses he received were adequate and in line with the COPFS customer feedback policy.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of clients about Business Stream. He said that Business Stream had billed his clients for water services based on incorrect information. He maintained that although he brought these inaccuracies to Business Stream's attention, they failed to amend them or change their bill. He said that as a consequence, his clients had been put under stress by Business Stream who did not readily put the account concerned on hold until the matter had been resolved. He said that his clients had been prevented from switching suppliers and that a switch might have been to their financial advantage.

We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, internal notes and emails, together with printouts from the Central Marketing Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation showed that although Mr C maintained that Business Stream had used the incorrect start date for invoicing, the CMA information confirmed Business Stream's understanding as correct. Mr C's client's account had been put on hold for the duration of the complaint and the client's own actions, in disputing their bill, was what had prevented them from switching users.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client about Business Stream. He said that bills issued to the client were incorrect, despite Business Stream being provided with the correct information. He also said that, despite requests, Business Stream had failed to install meters at the client's premises and had put the client under undue stress by not putting their account on hold. He maintained that Business Stream's actions had denied his client the opportunity of switching water providers which would have been financially advantageous.

We investigated the complaints, taking all the relevant information into account, including all correspondence and statements of account and invoices, together with relevant emails and printouts from the Central Market Agency (CMA). The CMA is the organisation that administers the market for water and waste water retail services in Scotland.

We did not uphold any of Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the information he held and upon which he had based his complaint was incorrect. We confirmed this by reference to information from the CMA. Mr C and his client had been given information about having bills reassessed, which would have allowed Scottish Water to install a meter at their cost, or alternatively for Scottish Water to make a contribution to the necessary cost. We also found that the client's account was on hold, and that Business Stream's actions had not prevented them from switching suppliers.

Summary

Mr C, who is a business adviser, complained on behalf of his client, a customer of Business Stream. He alleged that Business Stream were incorrectly charging for water and waste water services based on the wrong effective start date, despite his client drawing this error to Business Stream's attention. Mr C further alleged that his client had been put under unreasonable stress as a consequence, and that Business Stream had not readily agreed to suspend action to recover the money they claimed was due. He maintained that his client had also been prevented from changing suppliers because of Business Stream's mistakes.

We investigated the complaint, taking all the relevant documentation into account including Business Stream's complaint file, the relevant bills, internal emails etc. We also made formal enquiries of Business Stream.

We did not, however, uphold the complaints. Mr C believed that the premises concerned were a 'gap' site (ie that the site had a live water and waste water connection but neither Scottish Water or Business Stream knew that the property existed). Our investigation established that this was not the case and, rather, the premises were determined to be 'vacant' (ie Scottish Water and Business Stream were aware that the property existed and had a water connection, but believed the premises to be vacant). There were different billing arrangements in place for each of these categories when the water industry market opened for competition. Mr C had mistakenly assumed that his client occupied a gap site rather than a vacant site, and our investigation found that the way in which his client was billed was in fact correct.

Our investigation also revealed that Mr C's client's account was suspended during Business Stream's investigation and that there was no evidence of his client being harassed or bullied. Furthermore, as it was confirmed that the company had been properly charged for its water services, we did not find that they had been unreasonably prevented from changing supplier. Business Stream had in fact provided information about this to Mr C's client, had they wished to progress the matter.