Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C's daughter was a candidate for the SQA Higher physics examination in May 2010. Previously, she obtained a B grade pass in the preliminary school Higher physics examination earlier that year and had targeted a B grade pass in the final Higher examination.

Mr C’s daughter attained a C grade pass in the final Higher examination in May. The school submitted an appeal on behalf of Mr C’s daughter and another student in August 2010.

Both appeals were dismissed and both students' results stood. In returning the appeals, the SQA provided two reasons for their decision, both relating to the validity of the school’s preliminary examination.

Mr C submitted subsequent complaints against the SQA and the council (as education authority). He complained that the SQA had failed to provide a reasonable explanation of why they considered the school's preliminary examination was not sufficiently robust to support a successful appeal.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. The SQA had provided feedback to the school on why they had dismissed the appeals.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision to confiscate his PS2 console. Mr C said the prison told him the item was confiscated because it did not match the serial number of the PS2 on his property card. Mr C said he bought his PS2 console and that his must have been swapped for a different one.

The prison rules clearly state that no prisoner shall have in his or her possession, or conceal or deposit anywhere within a prison, any property which he or she has not been authorised to possess or keep. In addition to this, we also asked the prison if steps had been taken to try and identify the whereabouts of Mr C's PS2. The prison said the only way to do this would be to conduct a search of every prisoner cell in the establishment. We considered whether this would be a reasonable step to take. In our view, it was not and we felt it would be a disproportionate use of staff time. In light of the information available, we were unable to uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the delay in him being able to access the smoking cessation programme.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that prisoners are selected onto the programme in line with their liberation date and because of that, we were satisfied there had not been an unreasonable delay in Mr C's case. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision not to supply scissors to the prison barbers. He also complained because the prison were not providing cleaning fluids for the hairdressing tools.
Our enquiries confirmed that the prison had taken the decision not to provide scissors to the prison barbers in the interest of safety and security. We were satisfied the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and Mr C's unhappiness with that decision was not grounds for us to pursue the complaint further.

The prison also told us they had taken steps to reinforce local procedures for hairdressing tool hygiene and control. This included providing disinfectant cleaning wipes for the hairdressing tools and reviewing local instructions available to prison barbers and staff. In light of this, we were satisfied the prison had taken proper and reasonable steps and we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C submitted a confidential complaint to the Governor stating that he had been subjected to verbal abuse by a prison officer on a day in April 2011. He also raised concerns that an officer refused to accept an item of property from his brother following a visit in July. He suspected that both incidents involved the same officer.

The Governor investigated Mr C's concerns about the conduct of the officer but was unable to find evidence to support these allegations and took no further action. Mr C complained to us that his complaint had not been investigated properly and fairly.

In considering this complaint, we contacted the prison and received a copy of their investigation report. The report showed that the unit manager had interviewed Mr C and the officer as part of the investigation, as well as an other prisoner and officer who were in the area of the incident in April. We, therefore, considered that Mr C's complaint about the officer had been properly and fairly investigated and we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
The complainant, Mrs C, raised a large number of concerns about a review carried out by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS).

If a member of the public has concerns about the way a police force has dealt with a complaint they are entitled to ask the PCCS to carry out a review of the force's complaints handling.

Mrs C was concerned about a range of issues in relation to the review carried out by the PCCS including the factual accuracy of the PCCS report into her complaint, the accuracy of evidence considered by the PCCS, the procedure followed by the PCCS, communication by the PCCS and the interpretation of evidence and editing of the PCCS report.

A large number of the issues raised by Mrs C were outside our jurisdiction as they related to the evidence or information provided by the police, they questioned the merits of the decisions reached by the PCCS (without providing supporting evidence of administrative or service failure) or resulted from her misunderstanding of the processes followed by the PCCS.

We considered her remaining points and reached the view that the PCCS had properly considered the points she had raised. For this reason we did not uphold her remaining complaints.

Summary
Mr C made three complaints about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s (COPFS) handling of his complaint about police officers.

On looking into the complaints, we found that of the three, two related to the investigation of crime and, therefore, fell outside our jurisdiction.

On investigating the third complaint we found that the COPFS had not failed to address issues raised by Mr C. We found that the COPFS explained what they had done to investigate Mr C's criminal allegations and that they concluded their investigations were adequate. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C's brother was granted planning permission to build holiday cottages on his land in 2006 subject to conditions about the improvement of the access road to the north. Mr C owns the road and did not give permission for the improvements to be made as he did not want traffic from the cottages using the road. Mr C's brother sought planning permission for improvements to the access road to the south in 2007. Since then Mr C's brother has advertised and encouraged cottage users to use the north access.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the breach of the 2006 planning conditions. He also complained that the council acted unreasonably when deciding that the access arrangements were not unsafe.

The council responded that they had considered the effect of the small increase in traffic along with other factors and decided that it did not result in unsafe access arrangements. This was a decision the council were entitled to take. Our planning adviser concluded that the council had given reasonable consideration to the case of enforcement. The adviser commented that the statutory enforcement provisions of the planning acts are discretionary, not mandatory, and Government guidance strongly advises proportionality and reasonableness in taking enforcement action.

In this case, we considered that the relevant 2006 planning condition was a very general one in the interests of road safety and although the condition would have improved accessibility to the cottages, the traffic using the north access did not exacerbate the existing situation and did not result in less safe arrangements.

Summary
Mrs C hurt herself after falling on a loose paving stone. She made a claim against the council's insurers but they denied liability on the grounds that the pavement had been inspected two days prior when no fault was identified. Mrs C complained about this decision. In response, the council explained that as they had an inspection process in place which complied with national guidelines which they had followed in this case, they could not uphold her complaint. Unsatisfied with their response, Mrs C approached our office.

We cannot consider the question of liability, we can only review whether or not the council followed their own procedures and whether these procedures are, in themselves, appropriate. Having reviewed the evidence in this case, it was clear that the council had the right procedures in place and that they had followed them properly. As a result, and as they could demonstrate that they inspected the site of the accident two days before it took place, and found no defect, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr and Mrs C reside within a B listed building which had been divided into four flats. They complained that the council failed to properly handle a number of planning applications submitted in relation to one of the flats within the listed building. In particular, they complained that the applicant had submitted what they regarded as a less contentious application followed immediately by a variation; that the council had accepted a report on the water supply which had been prepared by the applicant's agent and that the council unreasonably accepted plans which were inaccurate.

Our investigation found that the council had considered the points Mr and Mrs C had made in their letters of objection about the planning applications and that there was no evidence of fault on the part of the council in the processing of the applications. They had also acted reasonably in accepting a report prepared by the applicant's agent. It was normal practice for information to be submitted by a suitably qualified professional to provide 'independent' advice, notwithstanding that he/she was appointed by the applicant. Any report would be scrutinised by the council during consideration of the application. We also found that the accuracy of the plans had been considered during consideration of the application.

As we did not find evidence that the council had failed to follow the proper processes and procedures in their handling of the applications we did not uphold the complaints.