Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) handling of his sentence management was unreasonable and that this had impacted upon the timing of his progression to open prison (a prison with the minimum of restrictions on prisoners' movements and activities). He said that the SPS had failed to adhere to their management plan, referred to by the Parole Board, and that statements puts forward by them explaining why his progression had been delayed, were untrue.

We looked at the fact that SPS did not adhere to the timing of the agreed management plan and whether doing so was unreasonable. We also reflected on the SPS' communication with Mr C in relation to his concerns that his progression was being unreasonably delayed and that he was left feeling confused about what was happening. In setting out their sentence management plan for Mr C with proposed timings, we acknowledged that this will have led to a reasonable expectation from Mr C for that plan to be followed and adhered to. However, the relevant policies and guidance in place make it clear that extenuating factors can affect the timing of agreed sentence management plans. In Mr C's case, the SPS had indicated his risk assessments, the need for an updated home background report and the suitability of his home leave address impacted upon the timing of his progression to open prison. We accepted that agreed management plans could change, however, we also considered the SPS had a responsibility communicate clearly and accurately with Mr C and to deal effectively and promptly with any concerns and queries he had about his progression and any perceived delays. In addition, we considered the SPS had a responsibility to ensure that proper, full records were kept of important decisions.

In light of the evidence we saw in Mr C's case, we were concerned about aspects of the SPS's handling of his case, particularly in relation to their communication with him. We found that there was failure to provide clarification at an early stage despite Mr C's repeated requests and obvious concern. We noted that Mr C had to raise numerous complaints in an effort to seek clarification and get further information on what was happening in his case. In addition, we believe that the SPS failed to consider whether their own actions were causing Mr C anxiety, confusion and stress which may have been perceived as negative behaviours. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.
• Apologise for the inconsistent and confusing communications and failure to clarify the position clearly and appropriately.

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

• Relevant staff should review the case with a view to acknowledging the failures identified and giving an explanation of the learning/action that will be taken to prevent the same thing happening again.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Ensure relevant staff undertake SPSO complaint handling e-learning course focusing particularly on the module on bias.

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 submitted an application for escorted day absence from prison to allow him to visit his father who was ill and unable to travel. Mr C understood that the application had been refused on the basis of adverse intelligence so he complained. The prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) said that the application had been rejected because there were no exceptional circumstances. The ICC told Mr C that they did not uphold his complaint because his application for escorted day absence had been denied after fair consideration.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly consider his application for escorted day absence. He said that there was no evidence to show that his application was ever properly considered by the prison according to published rules, criteria and procedure. SPS said that Mr C had disengaged from the application process because he was frustrated by the length of time that the paperwork was taking to be completed. The SPS said that they had spoken with Mr C on several occasions to encourage him to resubmit his application but he had repeatedly refused to do so.

In light of the information received from the SPS, we sought further clarification on what happened with Mr C's application for escorted day absence given the ICC indicated in their response to the complaint that the application was rejected because there was no exceptional circumstances and that it was denied after fair consideration. There was no evidence to suggest that the application process was stopped because Mr C refused to engage. The SPS told us there had been some confusion when responding to Mr C's complaint because his application paperwork had been misplaced. SPS acknowledged the ICC's response to Mr C's complaint was inaccurate. In addition, they explained that when Mr C's application form was found, it was incomplete. It was also discovered to contain an internal email exchange between staff discussing intelligence about Mr C. SPS said Mr C had disengaged from the process when he saw that email.

The SPS previously issued a notice to all staff stating that the escorted day absence application form must be used for all requests and must be fully completed to ensure responses were properly recorded. This did not happen in Mr C's case and in our view, it should have. At the very least, once Mr C's paperwork was found, steps should have been taken to complete it even if Mr C was refusing to engage with the process.

In addition, Mr C complained that the SPS failed to appropriately handle his complaint. We were concerned that the ICC had reached a decision on Mr C's complaint without having regarded the relevant information and despite that, they took the decision to conclude that the application had been denied after fair consideration. We felt that was a significant failing given the nature of Mr C's complaint.

Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Take steps to confirm with Mr C whether he can have his application for escorted day absence reconsidered.
• Apologise to Mr C for failing to properly consider his application for escorted day absence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Apologise to Mr C for failing to handle his complaint appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• Remind staff that the application form for escorted day absence must be completed in all cases to properly and accurately record the outcome of a request, including instances where an individual may withdraw from the process.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Review how the complaint handling failures identified in Mr C's case occurred and identify measures that will be taken to prevent this from happening again.
• Share details of the complaint handling failures identified in Mr C's case with staff involved in complaint handling to encourage learning and to prevent the same thing from happening again.

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

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow their risk management guidance, unreasonably failed to complete C's supervision level paperwork and failed to provide relevant information to appropriate parties in time for C's parole review hearing. Despite recognising the potential seriousness of these allegations, we were unable to complete our investigation because C left prison and did not provide us with updated contact details.

Summary

Ms C complained about the responses she had received from Revenue Scotland during a tax enquiry. Ms C said Revenue Scotland had unreasonably tried to impose additional tax following a property transaction. Ms C said that although her position had remained the same throughout the enquiry, Revenue Scotland had refused to accept she was correct, introducing a series of 'tests' which had no basis in law, and did not address the points she had made. Ms C had first engaged a solicitor, but Revenue Scotland had refused to alter their view. Ms C had then engaged a Queen's Counsel (QC – a lawyer appointment by the monarch), and following submission of their opinion, Revenue Scotland had agreed that she did not owe any additional tax. Ms C said it was unreasonable for Revenue Scotland to have accepted the QC's view, when it did not differ from the points she had originally put to them. Ms C said she had been forced to accrue unnecessary and substantial expenses because of the failure by Revenue Scotland to communicate reasonably with her.

We found that Revenue Scotland had failed to act in line with their Code of Customer Service. They had not provided Ms C with accurate advice and they had not communicated with her in a way which ensured she paid the right amount of tax and did not incur unnecessary expense. Revenue Scotland had refused to accept the points Ms C had consistently made, introducing a series of different reasons and failing to engage directly with the points made by Ms C until put forward by a QC. We also found there was no evidence that proper consideration had been given to a recommendation by senior Revenue Scotland staff that Ms C should be offered either some form of goodwill payment, or a contribution towards her legal fees. Additionally, we found internal correspondence suggested that Revenue Scotland staff were not identifying complaints timeously, due to a lack of awareness of the complaints process. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.
• Reimburse Ms C for the cost of obtaining legal advice, on receipt of proof of the cost, e.g. an invoice. The payment should be made by the date indicated: if payment is not made by that date, interest should be paid at the standard interest rate applied by the courts from that date to the date of payment.

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

• Review the factsheet to ensure it sets out clearly when the taxpayer can apply to the first tier tribunal and the role of Revenue Scotland.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Ensure staff are trained in the complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Care Inspectorate (CI) about the care provided to his late mother in a care home. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the CI's findings and complained further about their investigation. The CI confirmed that they were satisfied that their procedures were followed correctly.

We found that even though evidence could not be found to corroborate Mr C's complaints about his mother's care, the CI thoroughly investigated Mr C's complaints in line with their procedures. They carried out an unannounced visit to the care home, examined the care home records and interviewed all relevant witnesses. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained to us about the response she received from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to a complaint she made about a prison officer. During our investigation, the SPS agreed to issue a revised response to Miss C's complaint. We considered that this response adequately addressed the issues she had raised and that it resolved the complaint. We closed the complaint for this reason.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not reasonably investigate and respond to his report of lost property. Mr C's property went missing and the SPS acknowledged that the door to his cell was left open accidentally by one of their officers.

We found that the SPS had carried out investigations into what happened to Mr C's property and offered compensation. However, we noted that there were gaps in the investigation and the offers of compensation did not clearly state what they were for, or why some items were not being compensated. 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 carry out a robust investigation into his report of lost property. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Reconsider Mr C's compensation claim, taking into account the failings identified.

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

• Reflect on the findings of this decision and share this with the relevant staff. The SPS should ensure investigations are robust and reasoning for compensation claims are clear.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) unreasonably delayed in investigating the death of her daughter (Miss A) and that their communication with her had been unreasonable.

We found that COPFS have no fixed timescales within which investigations should take place; the reasons for this are clear given the range of complexities of investigations and the involvement of various external authorities. We accepted their position that they have no power to compel individuals and authorities to respond to them, but we considered that they must be proactive in driving investigations forward. We considered it would be reasonable for this to include giving timescales within which a response is expected, and escalation where deadlines are not met. We saw no consistent evidence of timescales being given, and we noted that often it took communication from Mrs C before authority responses were chased up. We therefore upheld this complaint.

In relation to unreasonable communication, COPFS acknowledged failings in the period leading up to Mrs C's complaint. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the length of time this investigation has taken, with an acknowledgement of the personal impact. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mrs C for the failings in communication. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines referred to above.

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

• Where responses to COPFS from external individuals or organisations are awaited, timescales for response should be given and proactive steps taken to escalate matters in the event that deadlines are not met.