Prisons

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us about the prison's complaints handling. He said that he had submitted a number of complaints, but the prison had failed to respond to them. He felt that staff were deliberately ignoring the rules about prisoner complaint forms.

We made enquiries with the prison. The prison provided records showing the complaints received from Mr C and what happened to them. There was also evidence that they had discussed Mr C's concerns with him. The information available told us that Mr C's complaints were responded to. We did not uncover any evidence to support Mr C's claim and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that at times the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had required him to share a cell that was not of an adequate size to accommodate two prisoners. He had been sharing a cell that was intended as a single, but which has been fitted with bunk beds. The prison told him that this was not their preferred option, but it is often necessary for operational reasons. They confirmed that Rule 28 of the prison rules gives them scope to require prisoners to cell share and they said they were not aware of any risk factors that would prevent Mr C and previous cell mates from sharing.

Although it was clear that sharing a cell in these conditions must be frustrating and space will be tight, our investigation found that there is no legal minimum cell size standard. We also found that the prison governor does have discretion to require prisoners to cell share when operational reasons dictate. We have seen copies of the risk assessments carried out for Mr C and previous cell mates. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison switched off the cell heating overnight. He also said that heating in cells on his side of the hall was faulty, but had not been fixed. The prison had explained to him that the hall was maintained at an average temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (C). If the temperature dropped below this, the heating would come back on. Mr C had also asked for information about minimum heating standards. SPS confirmed that the minimum recommended temperature in a cell was 19 degrees C.

We asked the prison about this. They explained that the heating is not switched off, but it is optimised. This means the system heats an area to 19/20 degrees C and once this is achieved, the system stops adding further heat to the area. When the temperature drops below this, the system begins heating the area again. They said that they had checked the heating system several times and were satisfied that it was operating properly. They confirmed that if Mr C asked for an additional blanket, they would consider this.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Although he is clearly unhappy about the level of heat in his cell overnight, the information we have seen suggests that the heating system is operating appropriately. The evidence also shows that the prison investigated his concerns appropriately and they have confirmed that he can request an additional blanket, which we consider to be a reasonable solution.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was returned from the prison open estate to closed conditions because it was suspected that he was involved in illicit substance misuse. Mr C said the decision was unreasonable because he had not done anything wrong and had not failed any drug tests. He also complained because he said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) inappropriately noted on his record that he had taken drugs.

The SPS are entitled to decide to downgrade a prisoner when evidence is available to suggest that the prisoner may be unsuitable for less secure conditions. We cannot question such a decision without evidence that the SPS did something wrong in that process. In considering Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that the SPS took the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions after following the proper process and considering all relevant information. We were also satisfied that they were entitled to record information about Mr C given that they suspected he was involved in unacceptable drug-related behaviour.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the SPS delayed in identifying that he needed to take part in a particular offending behaviour programme. He had already participated in one programme, and felt that his needs had not changed since he began his sentence. He was unhappy that the requirement for the second course was not flagged up earlier and felt that this set back his progress.

The prison told us that feedback from the first programme assessed Mr C as having outstanding needs and that he needed to complete an additional course. As such, there was no opportunity for this requirement to be identified earlier in Mr C's sentence, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that one night, after prisoners were locked in their cells, he was lying on his bed with the covers off. He said he saw an officer, who he thought was female, looking at him through the thin gap at the side of the cell door. Mr C said he jumped out of bed and challenged them. However, he did not get a response and the person left. Mr C complained to us that a member of staff observed him by looking through the gap in his cell door and this was inappropriate. Mr C thought there would be CCTV footage of the incident.

In their response to Mr C's complaint, the prison said that female or male staff looking in cells at any time was not voyeurism, and that prisoners had to be supervised. In response to our enquiries, the prison said it was not normally appropriate to observe prisoners through such a gap. They said, however, that there might be circumstances when this was required, and if so it would be preferable for this to be done by an officer of the same gender, although there was no policy about this. The prison also told us that they could find no information about whether CCTV footage was examined during their investigation of Mr C's complaint, or whether officers and prisoners were questioned about it. The prison said they no longer had footage from the date of the incident.

Without this, there was no evidence to support Mr C's claim that he was observed by a female officer through the gap at the side of his cell door, so we did not uphold his complaint. However, we were not satisfied about the way in which the prison responded to Mr C and we made a recommendation to address this failing.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• remind staff that complaints should be dealt with in line with the good practice on investigations outlined in the Staff Guidance on Prisoner Complaints document. Staff should ensure that complaints are investigated thoroughly, checking the available evidence, and responses to prisoners are specific to the complaint made.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a complaint to the prison governor using a prisoner complaint form (PCF2). This is the form that prisoners should use when they want to complain about an issue that is exceptionally sensitive or serious. In responding to Mr C's complaint, the governor told him that his complaint was not appropriate to a PCF2.

Mr C told us that he felt that the governor failed to consider his complaint appropriately. We reviewed the prison rules and complaints handling guidance that was available to prisoners and staff. We also reviewed the complaint Mr C raised on the PCF2. We did not agree that Mr C's complaint was exceptionally sensitive or serious.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was considered to meet the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)’s criteria for being moved from his existing prison to a new prison. This was because the postcode of the home address at which he was registered was one of those which determined a move to the new prison. Mr C did not wish to move because his partner had moved to be closer to his existing prison and because they wished to start a new life in that area on his release. He, therefore, wanted his registered home address to be changed to his partner's new address in the local area. He considered that would mean he would probably not meet the criteria for moving to the new prison.

However, we found that in the case of long-term prisoners such as Mr C, it is not simply a matter of wishing to change the registered home address. Social work staff in the registered home area and the proposed new area need to discuss and agree such a move first. Examples of what they take into account in such cases are whether the proposed new address is suitable and whether social work staff in the proposed area would accept responsibility for supervision etc on the prisoner's release.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The SPS had correctly explained the situation about the change of address. We advised him that he would need to go through the above process to see whether it could be changed, although, even if it was changed, there was no guarantee that he would be able to stay at his existing prison. In the meantime, the SPS would be acting within their prisoner allocation policy in relation to the new prison by moving him there.

Summary
Mr C's cell was searched by prison staff. Mr C said staff emptied his dark and light washing out of his laundry tubs and put the wet clothing into the sink in his cell. Because of that, Mr C said his light clothing was dyed by the dark clothing. The prison did not compensate Mr C for this, because the clothing was not available to back up his claim. Mr C complained to us because he said that, at the time of reporting the matter, staff unreasonably failed to ask to see his damaged clothing. Mr C said he disposed of the clothing on the day it was damaged.

When Mr C reported the matter to staff, they provided him with a claim form. When we investigated Mr C's complaint that staff did not ask to see the damaged items at the time he reported the matter, we did not agree with Mr C that this was unreasonable. Our view was that staff appropriately provided Mr C with a claim form and that he should have held onto his damaged clothing as evidence for his claim until an appropriate member of staff - someone dealing with his complaint or claim about the matter - asked to see the items. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the decision taken by the prison to remove him from the Open Estate and return him to closed conditions. Mr C said he had not done anything wrong and felt the prison's decision was unfair.

Our enquiries confirmed that Mr C was returned to closed conditions on a non-punitive basis. The prison confirmed that, at that time of returning Mr C to closed conditions, he was part of ongoing police enquiries. The prison decided to return Mr C to closed conditions until the police investigations were completed. This was a decision the prison were entitled to take and was in line with relevant practice and guidance.