Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, wanted to submit a request to change work parties whilst he was off work in prison for health reasons. He complained that it was unfair to prevent his request while he was off work.

Our investigation confirmed that it is not normal practice to allow a prisoner who is off work on health grounds to continue submitting certain requests to work or to change work parties. This is because there are not enough jobs for all prisoners, and to allow this practice would be unfair to prisoners who are waiting to be allocated a work party.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS had failed to properly and fairly investigate a confidential complaint, which he had submitted to the governor. Our investigation found that the matter had been fully investigated and appropriate action taken as a result.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that a decision to refuse him progression to enhanced conditions was unreasonably manipulated by a particular member of staff. Mr C questioned the professional opinion of the staff member. He felt that the SPS should not take into account subjective accounts given by staff. We explained that we cannot question the professional opinion of staff in the absence of evidence of administrative error or service failure in the way in which they reached their view. Also, following an enquiry to the SPS, they explained that the decision, and the reasons for the decision, were supported by a group of relevant staff.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he felt the prison were failing to issue privileged mail to prisoners with a reasonable time in accordance with published standards. Privileged mail is mail sent to a prisoner from their legal representative, the courts and other organisations, such as SPSO.

Our investigation highlighted that best practice suggested that prisoner mail should be issued on the day it was received by the establishment. However, the mail policy confirmed there was no legal obligation to ensure mail was given to prisoners on the same day it was received. Instead, the policy confirmed that the nature of the correspondence required a certain level of promptness. The examples of delays that Mr C provided in his complaint told us that, in most cases, his privileged mail was given to him the day after the prison received it. We did not find this unreasonable. He also raised other issues with us about how SPS handled his complaint to them about the matter, but we were satisfied that the prison had handled it appropriately.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS failed to provide him with appropriate products with which to clean his in-cell toilet. He said that the products provided are intended for cleaning showers and drains but are not specifically for toilets. The SPS told him that, in their view, the products were also appropriate for cleaning toilets. We considered this a reasonable view and one that they were entitled to reach. Given this, and the fact that there was no specific injustice for Mr C in relation to this, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, failed to attend his work party. He was placed on a misconduct report and subsequently issued with a caution. Mr C complained that prisoners in another hall within the same prison who fail to attend work are dealt with under a different process (referred to as Status 6) and not through the disciplinary procedure. He questioned why the prison operated different administrative practices for dealing with the same issue.

In responding to us, the SPS said that it is normal for practices to vary from hall to hall, particularly in light of the differing categories of prisoner in each hall. They confirmed that prisoners can be placed on misconduct reports at officers’ discretion and, similarly, certain members of staff can decide when to apply the Status 6 process. These processes are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is possible that prisoners can be subject to either or both if they fail to attend their work.

Mr C also complained that he was not given the opportunity to call witnesses to his disciplinary hearing. However, we noted from the associated paperwork that he pled guilty to the charge and was happy to accept the written evidence. There was no evidence that he requested witnesses.

Summary
Mr C purchased a hi-fi through prison 1's local purchasing process but was no longer allowed to use it after he was transferred to prison 2, as it contained a iPod docking station. Mr C complained that it was unreasonable of prison 2 to withhold the hi-fi and he had not been given adeqate reasons as to why it was not allowed. Mr C said that he had purchased the hi-fi through the proper procedure at prison 1 and that a security seal had been placed over the docking station to disable its use.

Prison 2 told Mr C that, in line with national policy, electrical or electronic equipment that may operate a device that can access the internet is not allowed in a prisoner's cell. Prison 2 sought advice from their IT specialist who advised that the iPod docking station could not be effectively sealed off.

We concluded that prison 2 acted in accordance with the national policy in withholding Mr C's hi-fi. There was evidence that Mr C was given a detailed written explanation of the reasons why he was not allowed this equipment. We also identified that the purpose of the security seal is to prevent unauthorised items from being concealed in devices that are allowed in a prisoner's cell, and not for the purposes of disabling the likes of an iPod docking station.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, it was clear that prison 1 had not acted in accordance with the national policy in allowing Mr C to purchase the hi-fi. As a result, prison 1 decided to reimburse the cost of it to Mr C.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was delayed in being identified for inclusion in an intervention programme. He said this was unreasonable. Mr C was worried the delay would affect his progression to less secure conditions and his chance of early parole.

Our investigation found that as Mr C had appealed against his conviction, his participation in intervention work was delayed. This was because Mr C's custodial circumstances could have changed as a result of the appeal, which would have impacted upon his participation in intervention work. Also, the prison explained that they have limited resources available to deliver a range of intervention programmes to a number of prisoners. In addition to this, the prison must deliver programmes to different population groups of prisoners, impacting further on these limited resources. Taking all of this information into account, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that he was fined £45 for late payment of council tax. He considered this unreasonable because he said he had not been given the opportunity to pay in ten monthly instalments. The original demand notice stated that an annual lump sum payment was due by 30 April 2010 and Mr C had later contacted the council to request to pay in instalments. A revised notice was issued to him in June 2010 for seven payments to be made by January 2011.

We found that the legislation which applies to paying council tax (The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2000) says that the amount is to be payable in no more than ten monthly instalments beginning when the demand notice is issued prior to the beginning of the relevant year. In line with this legislation, we found that the amended payment schedule reflected the three payments Mr C had already made and set out the balance to be paid in seven further instalments. As the demand was issued before the beginning of the relevant year (and the notification issued to him in June 2010 was not a new demand notice), the council could only allow him to pay by ten instalments in total. Mr C was fined (following the issue of two reminder notices) because he did not comply with the revised instalment payment schedule, and his account was passed to the warrant recovery stage in line with the Regulations. We found that the council had administered this correctly.

Summary
Mr C purchased his new home in August 2009. The building is roofed with a proprietary roofing system rather than slates or tiles. Mr C was alarmed in January 2010 when he noted that the roof tended to shed accumulations of snow. Because he felt this was dangerous, he brought it to the developer's attention. The developer, however, did not consider this to be a problem.

The developer applied for a certificate of completion and the council issued a Notice of Acceptance of Completion Certificate under Section 18 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. Mr C was still very unhappy and, in addition to contacting other interested parties, such as the architects for the project and National House Building Council, he engaged in detailed technical correspondence with the council on whether a building warrant should have been granted and verified. He also wanted to know whether the council should regard the building as unsafe and so take action. Dissatisfied with their response, he complained to us.

Our investigation did not uphold Mr C’s complaints that the council erroneously granted building regulations approval, acted improperly in defending the verification of the building warrant, or failed to act when Mr C alleged that the building was dangerous. This is because we found that they properly considered the issues he raised and responded accordingly. Mr C strongly disagrees with their position but that does not mean that the council acted wrongly. They have discretion to make such decisions and we cannot question this in the absence of any administrative or service failure on their part.