Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Miss A was a nursing student at the university. She was removed from her placement and then from the nursing course. Miss A’s MP (Mr C) complained that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the nursing course; unreasonably failed to have a clear policy in place for supporting students on placements; and failed to communicate the termination of Miss A’s studies, and explain her full appeal rights, in a clear and timely manner.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Our investigation found that the university had taken Miss A’s personal circumstances into account during her course. On three occasions Miss A had been offered the chance to defer her studies, but she declined. Taking this into account, as well as relevant university and nursing organisation guidance and regulations, we could not conclude that the university inappropriately removed Miss A from the course.

We found that the university were using a toolkit on dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia (all types of learning disorder) that was published by a nursing organisation. The university also had documents which showed that training specifically about dyslexia was undertaken with placement mentors.

In addition, we found that letters from the university did explain that her studies were being terminated. The university provided Miss A with copies of their appeal procedure which, in any case, she had a responsibility to be aware of as a registered student. University staff also explained the appeals process and referred Miss A to sources of advice and support.

Summary

Mr C had experienced a recurring problem of raw sewage being discharged into his back garden during heavy rainfall. Scottish Water had investigated and carried out some repairs, but this had not resolved the problem. Mr C believed that this was happening because the sewer was not able to cope with sudden heavy rainfall, and said that it should be replaced. Scottish Water told Mr C that they did not have the funding to do this. He considered this unacceptable, and believed that they should seek additional funding if this was what was needed to resolve the problem.

When we investigated the complaint, Scottish Water confirmed that a problem could occur during heavy rainfall, but said that they were tied by issues of funding and prioritising (internal flooding in a property has a higher priority than external flooding, and has to be addressed first) but they had, as far as they were able, taken action to address the problem. We noted that the indications were that they were trying to find a solution. On this basis and given the evidence that the problem was one of funding, rather than coming about as a result of maladministration or service failure, there was no further action that we could take.

Summary

Mr C complained that Scottish Water failed to respond adequately to his complaint about damage caused by a fish pass they had built. He said that this was causing erosion to a riverbed beside his property. In response to our enquiries, Scottish Water confirmed that they had built the fish pass because their sewer pipe was stopping salmon from getting up the river. They said they had a duty under legislation not to restrict salmon movement upstream. However, they said that the fish pass was not their asset and that it had not been shown that this was causing the erosion. They told us that there had been erosion in the riverbed before the fish pass was built.

Scottish Water said that they were not liable for the problem. We cannot establish legal liability. Only a court can look at legal liability between individuals and organisations. However, we can consider complaints about how a body have handled such matters. We were satisfied that Scottish Water had investigated the matter and there was no evidence of administrative error. We also found that Scottish Water's explanation to Mr C about the matter was satisfactory.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in getting on to a particular behaviour course in prison. He thought the delay might hold up his release from prison. From previous complaints, we were aware that the Scottish Prison Service were dealing with a temporary backlog of people waiting for courses since a new type of assessment of suitability for courses had been introduced. The new assessment was intended to benefit prisoners by combining various assessments into one.

From our investigation, we were satisfied that the prison were doing what they could to prioritise places fairly and improve the situation. For example, they had tried to arrange for some prisoners to attend a course at another prison. Therefore, although there were delays, we did not consider that the prison had acted unreasonably in relation to Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy that he was not allowed to use puzzle books that were handed into the prison for him by a friend.

Our investigation found that prisoners are not allowed to have reading materials handed in for them by family or friends. This is because it is possible for prohibited items to be hidden in the pages of reading materials. Instead, prisoners must purchase reading materials themselves through the prison's approved supplier scheme. By only allowing reading materials purchased through that scheme, the prison are able to increase the security and good order of the establishment. In addition, the prison rules confirm that the governor could refuse to allow a prisoner to have in their possession or keep in their cell any items that the governor considered to be damaging to the security and good order of the prison.

We were satisfied the prison had appropriately exercised its discretion in taking the decision not to allow Mr C to have access to the puzzle books handed in for him by his friend and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to reduce his wage banding (prisoners' work output is assessed against three performance standards). Mr C said he produced good quality work and he felt he should be on the higher banding. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that his wage had been reduced because of the quality of his work, and said that staff were entitled to move prisoners within the performance bandings. In response to our investigation, the prison explained that prisoners could be promoted or demoted depending on their work standards, behaviour, attendance etc. The prison confirmed that this also acted as a motivational tool for prisoners. They said that Mr C had been demoted because they felt the quality of his work could be improved. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied the prison had made their decision appropriately, after considering the relevant information.

Mr C also complained that the internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider his complaint appropriately. He said the ICC did not meet with him to discuss his complaint. We found, however, that the ICC tried twice to meet with Mr C to discuss his complaint, but Mr C chose not to meet them because he was at work. Because of this, they discussed Mr C's complaint in his absence. In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the ICC considered Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a request to be transferred to another European country to serve the remainder of his sentence. He complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing his application.

Our investigation found that the evidence showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) sent Mr C's application and the required documentation to the relevant European authority in April 2011. When they heard nothing after four months, they contacted the authority again and there was correspondence between them about what was needed to effect the transfer. More recently, however, the SPS had tried several times to contact the authority to try to progress Mr C's application, but had received no response. Mr C is not a national of the country involved, and because of that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (international guidance on transferring prisoners to their home countries) does not apply in his case. This meant that there was little more the SPS could do to progress this.

We recognised that Mr C's application had been ongoing for some time but found that the SPS had been taking steps to try and progress matters, despite there being no obligation on them to do so. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the way the prison were managing him. Mr C said he was a short-term prisoner but the prison were managing him as a long-term prisoner. Mr C also said he had been inappropriately subjected to a generic assessment which was normally only carried out on long-term prisoners. A generic assessment identifies whether or not a prisoner should participate in offending behaviour programmes.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that Mr C was sentenced to four years and four months in prison. In line with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)' normal policy, those sentenced to four years or more are classed as long-term prisoners and those sentenced to four years or less as short-term prisoners. Mr C was released from prison after serving half of his sentence but was then recalled to custody to serve the remainder of his sentence. Because Mr C's original sentence was more than four years, he was again managed by SPS as a long-term prisoner when he returned to prison. Mr C's situation was complicated by the fact that before his original sentence expired he was sentenced to a further six months and 32 months. That meant that when his original sentence expired, Mr C then became a short-term prisoner. In relation to the generic assessment, the relevant guidance confirmed that a prisoner can be the subject of a generic assessment if it appears that their level of risk of reoffending indicates that they would benefit from completing offending behaviour programmes. The prison also told us that Mr C consented to being generically assessed.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint and we were satisfied that he was being managed appropriately by the prison.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Public Standards Commissioner about the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). The issue concerned a complaint about the SLCC's predecessor organisation, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO). Mr C complained to us that the Commissioner did not respond to all of his allegations or look at specific evidence; looked into matters he should not have; and did not respond properly to all the issues raised in Mr C's letters.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We looked at the law that set up the Commissioner's office and their investigation guidelines. Our investigation found that there was no obligation on the Commissioner to respond in detail to every matter raised in a complaint. From looking at the records, we also found that the Commissioner explained why he could not look at all Mr C's allegations. He also explained to Mr C that the matters raised could not amount to a breach of the SLCC's code of conduct. Although Mr C disagreed with this, we found that the Commissioner's actions were in keeping with the investigation guidelines and were reasonable in the circumstances. We also concluded that his written responses to Mr C were reasonable.

The Commissioner's office had requested a copy of an SLSO opinion from Mr C because it was a key document that Mr C mentioned in making his complaint. The Commissioner referred to the opinion in correspondence with Mr C for the same reason, and because it was central to the origin of Mr C's complaint. We found that requesting a copy of the opinion and referring to it in correspondence did not constitute an investigation. The Commissioner told Mr C he had carefully examined all of the information. He did not say he had examined all of the information about the SLSO's opinion. We understood the Commissioner's statement to mean that he examined all of the information provided to him, which we concluded was reasonable.

Summary

Ms C operated a small business from a kiosk in a shopping centre. She had a water meter and paid her landlord for water and waste water. Business Stream sent her a bill for property and roads drainage based on the rateable value of her kiosk. She did not consider this was correct as her kiosk was entirely within the centre and had no separate roof or roads which required to be drained. She thought that Business Stream were charging more than once for drainage of the same water. We found, however, that Business Stream had charged her in line with their billing policy and on the same basis as the other tenants in the shopping centre. We did not uphold her complaint.