Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was a lack of employment opportunities in prison. As a result, he said he was only receiving a basic cell wage despite being willing to work.

The prison explained that due to external market conditions, they have encountered difficulties retaining and bringing in new contracts. As a result, there are not enough work spaces to accommodate the prisoner population.

Our investigation found that the prison rules require the governor to provide purposeful activity to prisoners whenever it is reasonably practical to do so. Work is one such purposeful activity and, in this instance, we were satisfied that it was not reasonable to expect work to be provided for every prisoner. We noted that other types of purposeful activity were available to Mr C, some of which may attract payment to supplement his income. In the circumstances we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C is a prisoner. In receiving visits from his family, Mr C prefers to use his visit allocation to receive visits only once a month and, therefore, requests double visits. However, the prison will not authorise such a request more than 72 hours in advance. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable.

When we investigated this, the prison advised us that, in the interests of fairness, the 72 hour rule is used to keep spaces open as long as possible to ensure that every prisoner has the opportunity to book at least a single visit. If spaces remain within 72 hours of a visiting time, they will then consider granting requests for double visits. However, they also said that they take a flexible approach and will consider requests more than 72 hours in advance - either in exceptional circumstances or when visitors are travelling a considerable distance.

In Mr C's case, they also said that as he only requires one visit per month and as his visitors travel by public transport, his requests will be considered provided he attaches a referral to the Family Contact Officer quoting the reasons for his request. If he requires more than one visit per month, he would have to revert to the 72 hour rule. We clarified this to Mr C at the end of our investigation. We considered the prison's approach to be reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prisoners in one hall did not have access to a prisoner telephone at all of the times specified in a particular part of the Scottish Prison Service Rules. During some of these times, Mr C was locked in his cell. He felt that the prison were unreasonably restricting his access to the telephone (which is an entitlement under the prison rules) without providing reasons for this and, in doing so, were treating prisoners in his hall differently from other prisoners.

Our investigation carefully reviewed the information received from Mr C and the prison, as well as the relevant rules and directions. From this, it became clear that Mr C was able to access a telephone in another hall if he chose to attend recreation in that hall. The rules did not specify that access must be to the telephone in the hall where the prisoner resides. Because Mr C chose not to attend recreation, for operational reasons he had to be locked in his cell. In choosing not to attend recreation, he also chose to restrict his access to the prisoner telephone. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because a member of staff refused to allow a solicitor to send a legal fax to the prison. He said this was contrary to published Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policy. In addition to this, Mr C said that the prison did not tell him that they had refused to accept the fax and the governor failed to conduct a proper investigation into the issues raised in his complaint.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. SPS policy says that the practice of using a fax for incoming correspondence should be discouraged in all but unavoidable situations. In Mr C's case, the staff member took the decision not to accept the fax because she did not consider the matter urgent and felt it was reasonable for the communication to be sent by post. We were also satisfied that there was no requirement for the staff member to notify Mr C of the refusal to accept the fax and that the governor responded appropriately to the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, an MSP, complained on behalf of his constituent Mr A about the Scottish Government's (SG) Sea Eagle Management Scheme. He said that it failed to allow Mr A to adequately protect livestock from sea and/or golden eagles and to compensate for lost stock.

Our investigation found that the scheme (operated on behalf of the SG by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)) provides grants for measures to protect livestock from predation from sea eagles where there is known to be a nest site for a breeding pair of sea eagles within five kilometres of a croft, farm or other land used for livestock. Grants are paid in arrears for certain relevant work. Individuals or groups can make an application for funding and the money is paid on completion of the work. The scheme does not provide compensation for lost livestock.

Evidence provided by the SG showed that SNH did not have evidence of a nest site within qualifying distance of Mr A's croft. The nearest known nest site was some ten to eleven kilometres away. Mr A had suggested that there might be nests on platforms set up on private or Forestry Commission Scotland land nearer to Mr A's croft but SNH were not aware of any such sites. They had asked Mr A to provide them with information about any nests that he knew of but he did not appear to have done so.

SNH said that there were known to be two successfully breeding pairs of golden eagles within five kilometres of Mr A's croft but that the scheme did not cover these birds. SNH had offered to send a vet, at no cost to Mr A, to examine any carcasses to try to establish if the predation was from sea or golden eagles or other predators such as foxes or ravens but he had declined. They had also offered to send an officer to advise Mr A on the measures he could take to protect his livestock but again he declined. We found, therefore, that the SG had made reasonable efforts to assist Mr A and that they had acted appropriately. We did not find any evidence of maladministration or service failure.

We found that it was clear that the scheme does not provide compensation for lost livestock. It is for the SG to decide whether or not a compensation scheme should be available, and we are not an appeal body for their decisions. We were not able to reach a decision on this aspect of the complaint.

Summary
Mrs C complained that Business Stream had become the provider of her water and waste water services without her knowledge or consent. She said that they had not entered into any contract with her and had not provided quotations (in advance or later) regarding the cost. They then started billing her, going back two years to the date when her business moved into the premises in question. She did not consider she should have to pay, given that she had not chosen them as her provider and that it had taken so long for them to contact her.

Our investigation found no evidence that Business Stream had acted wrongly. When the business moved into the premises, water services were provided but no arrangement was made to pay for them. From the correspondence that Mrs C provided, it was clear that Business Stream had acted correctly and had correctly stated the position to her in their letters. Where no provider is chosen, a default provider, in this case, Business Stream, is put in place. No contract with or agreement by the consumer is required for Business Stream to take on the supply. Business Stream are also able to charge the occupant back to when the business moved in (although they do not charge earlier than 1 April 2008). They do not provide quotations to the consumer about what those charges will be, but had correctly explained the charging basis to Mrs C. Finally, we found that it is the occupant's responsibility to find out about their water supply arrangements when they move into premises.

Summary
Mrs C complained that when the council installed new street lighting in her estate they did not replace the column that provided light to her side of the street. She complained that, despite being told by the council that the lighting level would improve and the road and pavement would be adequately lit, the new lighting did not provide the same light and her property was now in darkness.

When we investigated the complaint, the council provided documents that confirmed that the lighting columns erected in Mrs C's cul-de-sac conformed with the street plan for replacement lighting. We found that the council investigated Mrs C's complaints, including by making a night visit, and considered her request for a new light but had decided that this could not be justified on the grounds of cost, as the existing arrangement met the relevant British Standard. We found no evidence that the council had handled the matter wrongly.

Summary
Mr C complained about the council's trading standards department. He said that they had told him to obtain a specialist report on a newly installed door that he said was faulty and that this would be forwarded to the company concerned. Mr C later complained that the council reneged on their agreement to send the report. He said that as a result, it took longer to resolve matters and that he was not reimbursed the cost of the report. He also complained about the council's complaints handling, saying that the acting chief executive failed to respond properly to his concerns and left out important details.

Our investigation confirmed that the council officer had not send the report as he indicated he would. This was because he found out that the company had offered to send a representative from the manufacturers to inspect the door. He found this out at the same time he received the report from Mr C and took the view that it would be more appropriate to follow the manufacturer route. While this was a decision for him to take, we took the view that he should have told Mr C about it.

We found that the advice given to Mr C by trading standards staff was sound at the time it was given and that despite his claim that he was told to postpone submitting a claim for the cost of the report, there was no evidence to suggest this.

Although Mr C was unhappy with the acting chief executive's response, we found that he had replied in detail and had addressed Mr C's concerns. While Mr C did not agree with the terms of the response that does not mean that it was inappropriate.

Summary
Ms C entered into a council tenancy in 2007. Before she took the tenancy, the council had applied for and received Pressured Area Status (PAS) (which indicates that the demand for social housing outstrips supply) which meant that they had suspended tenants' right to buy their property until 2010.

Ms C had, however, anticipated that after serving the qualifying five years as a tenant she would be able to buy her home in 2012. In 2009 she applied to install central heating at her own expense. She was not specifically told then that the council might apply to extend the initial PAS period.

The council announced that intention in October 2009, and the Scottish Government granted a five year extension. Changes in the legislation after that allowed the council to exercise their powers to extend the period further, to 2020. Ms C complained that she had not been told of the possibility of the council applying for an extension, either when she signed for the tenancy or when she asked for permission to install central heating.

The council decided to apply for an extension five months after they gave Ms C permission to install central heating. While Ms C was clearly adversely affected by this and other policy decisions, in the absence of errors in the decision-making process we could not investigate these.

We did not uphold her complaints, as our investigation found that Ms C's original tenancy documents clearly stated that PAS was in place and that the council reserved the right to apply for an extension. She signed the documents and, therefore, the council clearly gave her accurate information about the position on right to buy.

Summary
Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused his son a place on the school bus. Mr C had to apply for a concessionary seat for his son, who was not entitled to free school transport if he attended a school which was not the school for his catchment area. Mr C was unhappy that the council refused his son's application.

We considered the complaint, the council's responses to Mr C and his MSP, and the council and Scottish Government guidance on entitlement to free school transport when attending a non-catchment area school. We found that councils have a statutory responsibility to provide free school transport to certain categories of pupils. However, if a pupil is placed in a school as a result of a parent's placing request (ie one that is not in the relevant catchment area for where the pupil lives), they are not entitled to automatic free school transport. In cases such as these, parents must apply to the council regularly to request that they be considered for concessionary places. The council does not have a statutory duty to provide these places and they are not guaranteed.

Our investigation found that the decision not to award a place on the bus to Mr C's son was a decision that the council were entitled to make, and that there was no evidence of administrative error in the way they dealt with the matter.