Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

A prison decided to restrict the exercise arrangements for protection prisoners (prisoners held separately from the main prison population for their own safety). The arrangements were that prisoners could only return to their residential area from the exercise area after thirty minutes or at the end of the exercise session (which lasts for one hour).

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about that decision. He said the decision was unfair because it restricted protection prisoners' access to facilities in the residential area throughout the exercise period. He said that this was discriminatory as the same restrictions did not apply to mainstream prisoners. In response to his complaint, the internal complaints committee (ICC) recommended that the prison allow protection prisoners to return to their residential area from the exercise area at twenty minute intervals. The prison governor endorsed the recommendation. However, the prison did not implement it and Mr C complained to us about this.

We explored with the prison why the ICC's recommendation was not implemented. We found that the prison considered two very important factors – the risk presented to the safety of prisoners and staff on the exercise route, and the risk presented to the good order of the prison. The prison also considered the physical location of the exercise yards for both protection and mainstream prisoners and took into account the impact that changing the current arrangements would have on available resources. The evidence available confirmed the prison appropriately explored whether the ICC's recommendation was possible but after careful consideration of relevant and important factors, decided not to implement it. In light of this information, we did not agree that the prison unreasonably failed to implement the recommendation and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably failed to respond to a complaint he submitted to them in February 2012. The prison assured us that they had no record of having received this complaint. We noted that Mr C had been transferred between prisons and that it was possible that the complaint might have gone missing because of this. However, in the absence of any evidence that the prison received the complaint, we could not conclude that the failure to respond was unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about the delay in carrying out his generic assessment. This is an assessment individual prisoners may receive to determine whether or not they need to participate in any offending behaviour programmes. In responding to Mr C's complaint, the prison told him they were aiming to assess him by April 2013. Mr C said that was an unreasonable timescale.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison explained to us that they prioritise prisoners for assessment in line with their critical dates - these dates include when the prisoner might become eligible for progression to less secure conditions, or their parole qualifying date. Having reviewed the evidence available in Mr C's case, we were satisfied the prison were managing his case appropriately and in line with the normal process. Because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in completing his end of programme report for Constructs (an offending behaviour programme in which some prisoners may participate). Mr C felt the delay in completing his report was preventing him from progressing through the prison system to less secure conditions.

The prison confirmed that the completion of Mr C's report had been affected because of staff absences, the delivery of another programme and development of the programmes environment. The prison also confirmed there was no timescale laid down for the completion of reports. In an effort to progress outstanding reports, the prison told us a list was created for prisoners who were awaiting end of programme reports for Constructs. This list ran in order of individual prisoners' parole qualifying dates and reports were dealt with in that order to ensure critical dates were not missed which would impact on progression. The Scottish Prison Service also told us that they estimated the timescale for the completion of an end of programme report for Constructs would be three months from the end of the programme, but this would depend on the complexity of the individual report. In addition, there was no evidence to support Mr C's claim that the completion of his report was preventing him from progressing to less secure conditions. For a prisoner to progress to less secure conditions, they must be approved by the prison's progression risk management team (PRMT). At the time of making his complaint, Mr C had not been approved.

Our investigation found that the available information confirmed that a number of factors had impacted on the completion of Mr C's report. However, it was in fact finalised just over three months after he completed the programme. After this, he was referred to the PRMT but his progression to less secure conditions was refused. In light of this information, whilst we recognised Mr C's report was not completed as quickly as he would have liked, we felt the time taken was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

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 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 was not eligible for parole for over eighteen months and there was sufficient time for him to be assessed for, and 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 that the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his bracelet within the establishment.

The prison explained that Mr C's bracelet was large and could potentially be used as a weapon. From our investigation, we were satisfied that this was a decision that the prison were entitled to take and that they had done so appropriately.

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 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 was not eligible for parole for another two years and there was sufficient time for him to be assessed for, and 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 that the prison refused to locate him next to his friend and also that they inappropriately located him next to individuals with whom he had had issues in the past. When the prison explained to us the reasons for their decisions, we were satisfied that they had taken all relevant factors into account and that the decision had been fully explained to Mr C. We did not uphold the complaint.

In addition, Mr C complained that the prison falsely accused him of being in a relationship with another prisoner, and that they treated his mother unfairly. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position on these matters and we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that Business Stream had charged his business back to a date earlier than when he moved into the property. Our investigation revealed that Business Stream had asked him to provide evidence of the date he moved in but that he had not done so.

We established that, on the basis of the information held by Business Stream, they were correct to bill Mr C back to the date they had used. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that Business Stream failed to let her know when there was an excessive increase in the amount of water they had recorded that she was using on her farm. She said that her complaint about this was not dealt with sympathetically because, although she had queried her bill, a reminder with an additional charge was sent. Mrs C also complained about the charge that she was quoted upfront for the disconnection of one of two meters serving her property.

We did not uphold her complaints. From our investigation we found that, while the statement of account did record that there was a sharp increase in water usage from the bill issued in the previous quarter, Business Stream had carried out an actual once-a-year meter reading three days before the contested bill was issued. They explained that it was open to customers to carry out their own checks on usage by taking and submitting their meter readings.

Further, it was evident that Busines Stream had provided Mrs C with the correct information about the circumstances in which a rebate could be given under their 'burst allowance policy' and why this did not apply in her case. They had responded to her complaint about the issue of a reminder for payment, and had not applied an additional charge.

With regard to the disconnection charges, from checking Business Stream's website it appeared possible that the amount that Mrs C said that she had been quoted for the upfront charges would have been for disconnection of both her meters. In responding to her complaint, they had directed Mrs C to the website. There was no evidence that Business Stream had given Mrs C misinformation about the cost of the deposit, and they have no discretion about the charges as these are based on the cost of providing this service. We directed Mrs C to the website to help her decide whether she wished to proceed with having one of her meters disconnected.