Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C was a PhD student at the university. Following submission of his thesis, he was accused of academic misconduct (plagiarism - passing off someone else's work as one's own) and his case was considered at a hearing by the university board of adjudication. Mr C was found guilty and the board decided that his studies should be terminated, with no right to complete his doctoral programme. Mr C appealed against the decision, but his appeal was not upheld.

Mr C raised a number of complaints about the procedure that the university followed when considering his case and about the validity of the sanction applied. He also complained that he was required to submit an electronic version of his thesis prior to his viva (oral examination) potentially making it vulnerable to copyright infringements.

We were satisfied that the university were able to demonstrate that they had followed the procedures set out in their academic misconduct policy and that the correct staff were involved at each stage. We were also satisfied that exceptional personal circumstances, disclosed by Mr C in his appeal, were adequately taken into account. Although we found that the sanction applied in Mr C's case was worded incorrectly, its intention was clearly stated and Mr C was not disadvantaged by the error.

With regard to the requirement to submit an electronic version of his thesis, we found that Mr C was asked to do this but when he declined, the university noted his position and proceeded with their review of his case. Although electronic copies are not normally required at this stage, we found the reasons for the university's request to be legitimate and their subsequent action to be reasonable.

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) who was working towards a degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology. This was a three year course, the third year of which was assessed by practical placements and academic work, including a thesis. Ms C said that over the course of Mr A's thesis the university had failed to provide him with an adequate level of supervision in terms of their own policies and procedures.

We found no evidence that explained the exact level of supervision a student should receive. This was because the level varies from project to project and trainee to trainee. There was also no evidence that Mr A had raised any concerns about the level of supervision while he was working on his thesis, and it was clear that Mr A and his supervisor disagreed about the level of supervision that was provided. There was insufficient evidence that the level of supervision was below an adequate level in terms of the university's policies and procedures, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to Scottish Water about the length of time they were taking to complete pipe replacement works along a stretch of road. The works affected his commute and he felt that they were taking longer than necessary as Scottish Water's contractors were not working during evenings and weekends. During his correspondence with Scottish Water, Mr C asked why work was not being carried out at these times, and was told that the local authority had placed restrictions on the hours that could be worked. However, when Mr C contacted the local authority, they told him that they had not done this.

Mr C complained that Scottish Water deliberately misled him in their letter, as there were in fact no restrictions on the hours that could be worked. Our investigation found that several departments in the local authority were involved in the pipe-replacement works. In their capacity as roads authority, the local authority had placed no restrictions on working hours for the project. Mr C's enquiries had been addressed to the roads service and they had confirmed this to him. However, in their environmental health capacity, the local authority had applied their standard working hours restrictions, which prevented work after 18:00 Monday to Friday and 13:00 on Saturdays, with no work permitted on Sundays or public holidays. We were satisfied that working hours restrictions were in fact in place and that Scottish Water did not deliberately mislead Mr C in their correspondence with him.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had not received the appropriate wage payment after transferring from one prison to another. Mr C said that the first prison did not pay him for the final week that he worked prior to his transfer. He also said the first prison told him that the second prison would pay him a repeat wage as his first wage payment there.

We made enquiries with the Scottish Prison Service about Mr C's complaint. Having considered what they said, and having looked at Mr C's prisoner account, we were satisfied that Mr C had received the appropriate wage payments and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that one of the three specific magazine titles he regularly received was removed from his possession. When he complained to the prison about this, he was advised that they were reviewing their policy on sexually explicit publications. In complaining to this office, Mr C stated that the publication he used to receive should not have been excluded.

When we investigated, the prison told us that following their review they decided to allow all publications that are freely available within reputable newsagents. They provided me with a list of titles which are available for prisoners to purchase direct from their regular supplier. This included two of the magazines Mr C received. The prison also confirmed that the list was not exhaustive and that Mr C could submit a request for the third title, which would be permitted as long as reputable newsagents were willing to stock it. As the prison rules give the governor discretion to decide what items to allow, we considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison refused to allow him to buy adult magazines. The prison confirmed to us that the requested material was not permitted and they explained the rationale behind this. They advised that this policy had recently undergone a thorough review. Although Mr C raised concerns about the policy not being applied consistently throughout the prison, we could find no evidence of this. As the governor has discretion as to which items to allow in their prison, and as the prison clearly advised Mr C of their position on the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were restricting his access to the complaints process. Mr C said complaint forms were not readily available and that some forms were withheld by staff. He also said there was no information displayed about the complaints process or the disciplinary appeals process. Mr C said he was also waiting to receive complaints back from the prison which had exceeded the timescale.

We explored the issues raised by Mr C with the prison. The prison advised that all residential areas were checked and details of the complaints process were prominently displayed and complaint forms were readily available. The prison was also unable to comment on Mr C's claims that some complaints were withheld by staff because he had not identified any individuals. However, the prison did advise that staff were spoken to and assured that complaint forms were dealt with appropriately. The prison also checked the record of Mr C's received complaints and advised that all of complaints had been responded to and returned to him. We did not uncover any evidence to suggest that Mr C's access to the complaints process was being restricted and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who was a prisoner, received a copy of his integrated case management (ICM) case conference minute and was unhappy with some of the content. In particular, he was concerned about comments made about him by a member of staff. Mr C raised his concerns with the prison but was unhappy with the steps that they took to address his complaint. Because of that, Mr C complained to us that the prison failed to investigate his complaint appropriately.

It was clear Mr C had concerns about the information recorded in his case conference minute, the steps taken by the prison to address his concerns and the involvement of the member of staff that Mr C felt made inappropriate comments about him. However, having explored Mr C's concerns further with the prison during our investigation, we were satisfied they took appropriate steps to record his representations about his case conference minute and investigate his concerns. We were also satisfied the prison had addressed Mr C's concerns about the comments made about him by the member of staff. Because of this, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had failed to record the circumstances of an assault upon him by another prisoner. In bringing his complaint to this office, Mr C said the governor of the prison failed to ensure his complaint was properly investigated and responded to.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that the governor had taken appropriate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns that the prison failed to record the circumstances of the alleged assault. We also satisfied that the governor's response was appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

In June 2011, Business Stream told Mr C that there was a leak in his water supply. He tried to establish its source but by October 2011 had been unable to do so. He said that he thought that the leak would equate to a dripping tap. In November 2011, Business Stream told him that he was to receive a large bill and, the same day, issued a bill for more than £20,000. Mr C complained that although Business Stream were aware of the water leak in June 2011, they failed to tell him of its extent which meant that by the time of their November 2011 bill, he had accumulated a large debt.

We investigated the complaint and obtained Business Stream's complaint file, all relevant correspondence, Mr C's bills and meter readings together with copies of the applicable legislation. We found that when Mr C was told about the leak, under the applicable legislation and terms and conditions, he was responsible for finding and fixing it. He had been unable to do so and in October 2011, he told Business Stream who suggested that he seek Scottish Water's assistance.

Scottish Water found the leak and repaired it at Mr C's expense. Mr C's bill was not sent out until Business Stream established that it was correct. While Mr C was unhappy to receive such a large bill, we found that it was clearly his responsibility to find and repair the leak at his own cost. As he did not so until the end of October 2011, Business Stream could not be held responsible for the cost of the water that had leaked away. We did not uphold the complaint.