Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Ms C complained about her treatment by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). Due to her circumstances, Ms C's supervision level was raised to high. Ms C accepted the prison rules in relation to this, however, claimed that other prisoners under the same circumstances as her remained at a low supervision level. In addition to this, Ms C complained about being turned down for a job that required a low supervision level. She provided the names of a number of prisoners who she stated worked low supervision jobs despite being of a higher supervision level. Finally, Ms C complained about how her complaint was handled.

Given concerns about data protection and privacy, we did not consider it appropriate to ask SPS for information about the individuals named in Ms C's complaint. In response to the first complaint, we were satisfied that the SPS were entitled to assign Ms C a high supervision level and had provided reasonable justification for this. We were also satisfied that SPS appear to have reviewed the supervision levels of current prisoners with the same circumstances as Ms C and confirmed they are being treated consistently. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In response to the second complaint, SPS confirmed that the job Ms C had wanted requires a low supervision level and they were not aware of any prisoner undertaking this role with a higher supervision level. However, the unit manager of the prison advised they would be willing to look at individual cases should Ms C provide details of names and dates she believed this happened. We acknowledged that the evidence available to us was limited due to not being able to directly request information relating to specific individuals. However, we were satisfied that SPS appear to have taken steps to consider whether specific work roles were being given to people of an appropriate supervision level. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

In respect of the third complaint, Ms C and SPS provided contradicting accounts of how the complaints process was handled. We did not consider there to be sufficient evidence to support one account over the other. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we provided feedback about informing prisoners of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) decision within 20 days of a complaint being referred to the ICC. 

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him access to a laptop. Mr C said that he had a degenerative condition (a disease in which the function or structure of the affected tissues or organs worsens over time) and a laptop had specialist software that would allow him to communicate as his condition progressed.

We found that the SPS responded reasonably to Mr C's request. We also noted that once Mr C had received a specialist assessment for his degenerative condition, the prison service had agreed to work with his medical team to resolve the issue. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C was also concerned about the way his complaint was handled. We found that the SPS handled Mr C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison officer placed a complaint form he had completed into a shredder. Mr C told us this had been witnessed by staff and other prisoners. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that the officer's version of events was that the complaint had been dealt with and Mr C was content that the paperwork could be disposed of. SPS accepted that the officer had failed to follow the Prison Rules, which require a clear process to be followed for every complaint received. In terms of the Rules, complaint paperwork has a retention period of 5 years. There is also a requirement for a copy of all complaints, whether resolved or escalated, to be retained in the prisoner's core file. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the SPS had already apologised to Mr C for the failings in the handling of his complaint, both in person and in writing, and we therefore did not make any recommendations.

We also looked at SPS' investigation of the complaint, given that Mr C had told us there were witnesses to the incident, but SPS had not interviewed any witnesses. SPS provided evidence that they had not been told of any witness until they received our formal enquiry. When they then interviewed Mr C about the witness to the incident, he told SPS that the individual did not wish to be involved. While it would have been good practice for the SPS to explore whether there were any witnesses, as part of their complaint investigation, we considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C to clearly identify any witnesses, and whether they supported his complaint, at the time of submitting his complaint to the Governor. He did not do that, therefore we found the SPS' investigation of his complaint was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was removed from his cell to a different part of his prison temporarily and when he was returned to his usual cell, he said that some of his property was missing. Mr C put in a lost property claim to the prison, but they did not pay it. Mr C complained to the prison about this, and the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) agreed with the decision not to pay his claim. Mr C claimed that the ICC's handling of his complaint was unreasonable.

We found that the form for clearing Mr C's cell was not completed properly and was not dated, so it was not known how long it took to secure Mr C's property. The ICC did not take this into account. They also did not consider that the property claim panel stated that Mr C's cell was cleared on a specific date, while there was no record of when the cell was cleared.

The ICC referred to a disclaimer that Mr C signed, stating that he was to be responsible for his own property when it was in his care; this was part of the reason for not paying Mr C's claim. We found that it was unreasonable to say that property was described as being in Mr C's care when he had been removed to another part of the prison, and his property was in his cell for an unknown period of time before it was secured. In addition, the ICC failed to ask the property claim panel what evidence, if any, they considered and how they had come to their view about Mr C's claim.

We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failure to properly investigate and respond to his concerns. 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 claim, given the failings identified, taking account of the prison's statement that if the ICC had upheld Mr C's complaint, they would have recommended that the property claim panel pay him in full for his claim.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• ICC members should be sufficiently trained in good investigative practice, and apply that practice in dealing with prisoner 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 about a number of aspects of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)' management of her. She complained that the SPS:

held her in an unsuitable cell when she was on Act 2 Care (the suicide risk management policy)

acted unreasonably in relation to an incident when she was attempting suicide

unreasonably removed her from Act 2 Care

failed to acknowledge and manage her risk when she raised concerns about her wellbeing on one occasion

unreasonably left her unsupervised with a sharp object

We found that, in relation to acknowledging and managing Ms C's risk when she raised concerns about her wellbeing on one occasion, the SPS had failed to assess Ms C's risk reasonably at this point and failed to follow their own 'Talk to Me' policy (which replaced Act 2 Care). Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms  C's complaint. However, in relation to Ms C's other four complaints, we found that the SPS had acted reasonably and we did not uphold these aspects.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to appropriately acknowledge and manage her risk after she raised concerns about her wellbeing. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The 'Talk to Me' strategy should be adhered to in relation to assessments.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) failed to identify and investigate apparent misconduct in line with their Inquiry Policy, and failed to consistently explain their interpretation of the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) in relation to accounting and financial reporting.

We found that OSCR had followed their Inquiry Policy in assessing and investigating the apparent misconduct Mr C reported. In addition, they had clearly explained their role, responsibilities and obligations to Mr C. We also found that, while Mr C did not agree with OSCR's interpretation of SORP, OSCR's position was reasonable and they had clearly explained it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) declined an Escorted Day Absence (EDA) application, having approved two applications previously.

We found that the SPS followed the relevant legislation, carried out a detailed review of the circumstances of Mr C's EDA applications, and assessed each application on its merits.

In declining the specific application Mr C complained about, the SPS noted that the application did not meet the criteria, taking account of all the information gathered in relation to that application, including security information.

Under the legislation, the SPS has discretion to approve or refuse EDA applications. In Mr C's case, they were entitled to make this decision for his applications. We found no evidence that the SPS unreasonably declined Mr C's EDA application, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) stopped his Special Escorted Leave (SEL). He also complained about the handling of his complaint.

We found that the prison did not stop Mr C's access to SELs but, within their authority under the relevant legislation, they questioned Mr C's need for visits to a specific place, given a change in circumstances. The SPS can limit access to SELs if they consider a proposed visit no longer serves the intended purpose. Mr  C still had access to SELs to visit other places. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

In dealing with Mr C's complaint, the SPS said that they would review the subject of Mr C's complaint. However, they did not share the outcome of the review with Mr C. Providing an explanation to him would have been appropriate and good practice. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to respond reasonably to 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.
• Provide a full response to the issues raised in the complaint, and communicate the findings of the review.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should respond to points of concern raised within prisoners' complaints, and ensure that the main aspects of the complaint are addressed.

Summary

Ms C said that she was subjected to hate crimes in prison. She complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to retain CCTV footage for the periods of time in question and that they failed to handle her complaints about the matter appropriately. Ms C also complained that the SPS unreasonably failed to respond to her equality and diversity complaint.

We found that Ms C could have provided SPS with more detail on the allegations when she asked them to retain CCTV footage. However, we considered that there was sufficient information to allow SPS to realise that an unspecified crime was alleged and it would have been reasonable for them to take steps to clarify the nature of the complaint. This would have allowed the SPS to determine exactly what the complaint was about and whether CCTV needed to be retained.

We found that subsequent investigation of the complaints by the SPS had not been sufficiently thorough as only one member of staff had provided a statement in connection with a single date. We did not consider this to be evidence of a full investigation as incidents were alleged to have taken place on two different days and there was no information recorded on why it was considered unnecessary to take statements from other members of staff on duty at the times in question.

We also found that the SPS had not provided a response to the equality and diversity complaint that Ms C submitted. We upheld all of Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the failure to make further enquiries in relation to retaining CCTV footage, appropriately investigate the complaints and respond to the equality and diversity 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:

• Complaints should be appropriately investigated and responded to.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way that the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) investigated an issue regarding debts in his Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS - statutory debt management scheme introduced by the Scottish Government) Debt Payment Programme (DPP - a programme that allows a debtor to pay off their debt over an extended period of time) after one of his debts was written off by the creditor. Having investigated this matter, the AIB established that the incorrect debt had been removed from Mr C's debt payment plan. The AIB said that inaccurate information in the DAS application had contributed to this error. The AIB apologised to Mr C for the error and offered reassurance that the removal of the wrong debt had not been of detriment to him.

We found that there was limited documentation of the initial investigation carried out once the AIB were informed of an issue with one of the debts. We were unable to find satisfactory evidence to support the AIB's conclusion that the error had not been detrimental to Mr C. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also raised concern that the AIB did not provide a full response to his complaint. We found that the AIB had not informed Mr C whether he had overpaid his debt payment programme despite this being a point he raised concern about. We also found that the AIB's complaint response indicated to Mr C that it was their intention to make a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regarding issues experienced with one of the creditors. The AIB acknowledged that when it subsequently became apparent that this would not be possible, they should have updated Mr C. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not appropriately investigating his concerns regarding a mistake in his Debt Payment Programme, and not providing him with a full and objective response to 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.
• Provide Mr C with an explanation regarding how the payments made to one of his debts after it should have been removed have been accounted for, including whether the payments have been returned and reallocated to other debts. Revise the spreadsheet used to calculate the balance of Mr  C's DPP and provide him with a copy. Provide Mr C with a summary of the administrative and communication issues experienced with creditors throughout the DPP so that he is able to make an informed decision about whether to make a complaint to the FCA.

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

• Investigations into issues with debts or payments within a debt payment plan should be adequately documented in the customer's case notes.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• A complaint investigation should aim to establish all the facts relevant to the points made in the complaint and to give the customer a full, objective and proportionate response.