Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of their client (A) about the actions of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) relating to the proposed denotification of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of which A was one of the landowners of the site. C's complaints related to a number of issues including SNH's contact with the media and their communication with A.

We found that SNH had discretion in relation to any additional contact with the media they considered appropriate and provided a reasonable explanation in relation to their actions. SNH informally notified landowners of their impending action and formally notified A in writing once formal notification commenced as per their procedure. There was a delay in written notification arriving with A but this was outwith SNH's control. Having considered the information available, we determined SNH's actions to be reasonable and in line with policy and procedure. As such, we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the information provided to him when he was awarded expenses by the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Housing and Property Chamber). Mr C was made aware of the steps of the Tribunal's process up until the Auditor of the Court of Session decided what amount was due as expenses, and the Tribunal issued an order for payment. Mr C did not follow that information. As this was only the second time that the tribunal awarded expenses, we considered it was reasonable that the administrative staff did not know this part of the procedure until informed of the process by a member of judicial staff. The next part of the procedure was covered by diligence procedure under Scots Law and is not distinct for this tribunal. Administrative staff were unaware Mr C did not know this and therefore did not address this. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Mr C also complained about a failure to provide a clear response to his complaint. Mr C made it clear he did not know the difference between an Order for compensation and an Order for expenses and it would have been helpful if this had been discussed with him. Mr C also received correspondence that did not address his complaint and stated that he was looking for legal advice, when that was not the case. There was a lack of understanding of how complex the procedure may appear to someone who had never been to the tribunal before. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service had apologised to Mr C and made changes to their website to ensure information was clearer. We did not make any recommendations in this case but did included feedback to the organisation that an expression of empathy for those who found the process complex would be reasonable to expect in complaint handling.

Summary

C is the welfare and financial guardian to A who requires residential care. C complained to the Care Inspectorate about the service A was receiving at the care home in which they reside. The Care Inspectorate upheld C's complaints and made a requirement and recommendation for improvement. C later complained that these had not been implemented, however the Care Inspectorate did not uphold this complaint. C complained to us that the Care Inspectorate failed to take into account the evidence they provided in support of their complaint.

The Care Inspectorate confirmed that all of C's concerns were taken into account and they had noted that some improvements were being made by the care provider.

We found that the Care Inspectorate failed to satisfactorily address the detailed evidence submitted by C in support of their complaint. While it was not unreasonable to note that some improvements had been made by the care provider, we considered that if the Care Inspectorate had reviewed C's evidence in detail, they could not have reached the conclusion that the provider had met the requirement and recommendation. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to investigate their complaint to a reasonable standard. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaint responses should demonstrate that evidence has been considered in the course of an investigation.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) failed to take reasonable or appropriate action in respect of the concerns he raised about a water provider.

We found that WICS did not handle Mr C's concerns in line with their Policy for Licence Contraventions. We considered that Mr C had attempted to raise a concern about a potential breach of licence conditions but WICS did not handle his correspondence in line with the relevant policies and procedures. We noted it was very difficult to find information about how to raise a complaint about a potential licence breach on the WICS website. As such, it would have been reasonable to expect WICS to provide Mr C with more information about their statutory role and details of the process for raising a complaint about an alleged breach of licence.

We concluded that it was unreasonable for WICS not to have accepted Mr C's original correspondence about an alleged licence breach or to have provided him with information about how to make such a complaint. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. In addition to this, we identified failings in how WICS handled Mr C's complaint about their service and provided feedback about this.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified as part of our investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .
• If Mr C wishes to make a complaint about a potential license breach, WICS should accept this and consider it in line with their Policy for Licence Contraventions. If Mr C is not at the stage to make such a complaint, WICS should provide him with appropriate advice.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Complaints about potential license breaches should be handled and considered in line with the Policy for License Contraventions and WICS' statutory requirements.
• Details about how someone can make a complaint about a potential license breach and what the role of WICS is in this regard should be clearly accessible on the WICS website.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the procedure detailed on the WICS website and on www.spso.org.uk/how-to-handle-complaints .

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably stopped her visits with a family member who was also in prison. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is only entitled to receive a visit from another prisoner in exceptional circumstances. We found that the decision to stop the visits was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take and there was no evidence that they did not follow the correct process. Under our legislation, we cannot change or question a decision that has been made properly. We did not identify any failings by the SPS and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C raised a complaint with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) because he was concerned that intelligence disclosed to him linked him to what he described as innocuous activity and groundless concerns. He also considered that a series of emails sent between SPS staff indicated a degree of misrepresentation of the factual situation and misrepresented the views of a member of staff from the psychology department. Mr C was unhappy with the way that the prison had handled his complaint. In particular, he had concerns about the time taken to respond to him and the steps taken to keep him informed of when he could expect to receive a full response. Mr C also had concerns about the quality of the response issued to him.

We found that the prison did not deal with Mr C's complaint in line with the timescale set out in prison rules. However, it is reasonable that not all investigations will be able to meet that timescale; some investigations are complex and require careful consideration and detailed investigation beyond the seven-day timescale. Where there are clear and justifiable reasons for extending the timescale, the SPS guidance on complaints confirms that a governor can inform the prisoner that there will be a delay and confirm when the response will likely be given.

In Mr C's case, the prison explained that the reason for the delay in issuing a response to his complaint was because a relevant member of staff was on leave, but they did not communicate a new timescale to him. We also found that the prison failed to address the fact that a staff member had in fact miscommunicated the views of another member of staff. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to fully address the concerns raised. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance .
• Fully address Mr's C's concerns about the misrepresented views of the psychology department and the failure of senior staff to clarify the matter.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C works as part of a team of peer tutors within the prison. This includes him working with individual prisoners, or small groups of prisoners, within residential halls. Mr C understood a timetable for when peer tutoring could take place was agreed between the learning centre manager and prison senior management. However, there were occasions when prison staff refused to facilitate Mr C's requests to leave his cell to carry out peer tutoring sessions. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to ensure adherence to the previously agreed peer tutoring arrangements. He also complained about a subsequent review of peer tutoring arrangements. In particular, Mr C said the handling of the review was unreasonable.

The SPS' position was that the timetable referred to by Mr C was just a suggested protocol with proposed times of when peer tutoring may take place. We accepted that there would be occasions when access to certain activities, including peer tutoring, may be curtailed due to operational requirements arising within the prison. On the occasions when Mr C had not been unlocked from his cell for peer tutoring, this was because of operational requirements. We concluded that there was no official agreement in place with regards to peer tutoring times but a suggested protocol had been drawn up instead in an effort to support the function as much as possible.

We also looked at the prison's handling of the review. Mr C was concerned that the findings of the review were not communicated to him before the new process was implemented and that further layers of uncertainty were introduced. Mr C also felt the review failed to address issues which arose in relation to participation in the scheme or the times during which peer tutoring could take place. The SPS explained the review sought to examine how the role of peer tutoring was carried out and to address some concerns that had been raised. We agreed that the SPS had discretion to carry out reviews like this and they were responsible for deciding what areas to focus on during the review. We did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.

Finally, we also looked at Mr C's concerns about the prison's handling of his complaints. He was concerned that despite raising his complaints there appeared to be an ongoing lack of awareness amongst staff regarding peer tutoring arrangements. Mr C also felt the prison failed to clarify issues raised surrounding the handling of the review of arrangements. We found that in responding to the complaints raised by Mr C, staff failed to take effective steps to ensure clarity surrounding the arrangements. We also felt it had not been made clear that the timetable Mr C understood was in place was only a suggested protocol and responses issued to Mr C were inconsistent. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to take effective steps to provide definitive clarity surrounding peer tutoring arrangements. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets .

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The prison should be clear on their standard approach to peer tutoring and should clearly communicate the position to staff and prisoners involves in those arrangements.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained that after an inspection by the Care Inspectorate of the care service she runs was carried out, she was not given sufficient information regarding how to improve. She also complained that the Care Inspectorate failed to reasonably investigate her complaint.

We found that there was evidence that the Care Inspectorate had given Mrs C substantial feedback after the inspection and was offered further advice and support from both the inspector and team manager. We did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to complaint handling, we found that the Care Inspectorate handled Mrs C's complaint in line with their complaint handling procedures and therefore we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately investigate his complaint. Mr C said that a prison officer had displayed inappropriate behaviour towards him and asked the SPS that CCTV footage be retained. The SPS concluded that no inappropriate behaviour was displayed towards Mr C and did not uphold his complaint. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

Mr C said that there were at least six officers present at the time when the officer he complained about was allegedly displaying inappropriate behaviour, but said none of those officers present were interviewed. Mr C also questioned whether the CCTV had been viewed. We asked the SPS for notes or statements taken from the staff members spoken to as part of the investigation of Mr C's complaint. We also asked whether CCTV footage had been retained. The SPS confirmed they accepted that the original investigation of Mr C's complaint failed to acknowledge and report on the staff present at the time in question. They advised no statements were taken when officers were interviewed about the alleged incidents. The SPS also confirmed the CCTV footage was not retained and explained that CCTV footage was only retained for matters of security and good order, prisoner disciplinary proceedings or police matters. They told us that CCTV footage was not ordinarily retained for matters of daily activities in the prison including the investigation of complaints. Following our enquiry to the SPS, they also re-investigated Mr C's original complaint and shared the findings with us.

We had a number of concerns about the quality of the SPS' investigation of Mr C's complaint. In particular, the SPS' response inaccurately reflected that Mr C had asked that CCTV footage be reviewed when he had in fact asked several times that it be retained. The response also failed to confirm when the officer in question had been asked about the matter or given the opportunity to put forward their account. This was concerning given the CCTV footage seemed to support some of what Mr C had described. The SPS said they did not take statements from the officers present and they also failed to maintain a proper record of the evidence gathered as part of their investigation of Mr C's complaint. In light of our findings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to appropriately investigate his complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Consider whether CCTV footage should be retained in future when a complaint alleges inappropriate behaviours of staff members.
• Feedback our finding's to the staff involved in the handling and investigation of Mr C's complaint.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the delay by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to provide him with a Psychological Risk Assessment (PRA). Mr C had been assessed by the prison Risk Management Team (RMT) to require a PRA but had not yet received this years later. He complained that there was an undue delay in him receiving his PRA and he noted that this impacted on his progression and chance of parole.

We found that as a result of several factors, there was a significant delay in providing Mr C with his PRA. The SPS advised that the psychologist involved in the RMT meeting would normally set and communicate the timescale to start and complete the PRA but this was not done in Mr C's case and there was no explanation for this. The SPS also noted that as part of his PRA, Mr C needed a particular assessment which only certain members of the psychology department were trained to undertake and, as a result of staffing issues, there was not an available psychologist to complete this assessment. The SPS further noted that due to having to prioritise work on statutory obligations relating to management of other prisoners, outstanding work such as Mr C's PRA, were put on a waiting list. While staff issues as the result of vacancies and sick leave would be hard to predict, there was also a shortage in staff trained in the tool needed to complete part of Mr C's PRA and we were also critical of the failure to set and communicate the timescale for the PRA to be completed in line with normal practice. Therefore, we found that there was an unreasonable delay by SPS to provide Mr C with a PRA and upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in providing his PRA. The apology should meet the standards set out inthe SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Review PRA process and give consideration to whether formal guidance is required for staff and whether there are enough appropriately trained staff to deliver the process.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.