Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained that he did not receive his meals in prison when he was off his work placement for a week. He has a nut allergy and had requested to be placed on a special diet list. His work placement was within the kitchens so he was usually able to prepare his own meals. However, he complained that he was not placed on the special diet list, resulting in him not receiving meals when he was off work.

In responding to his complaint, the prison indicated that Mr C had not been on the special diet list, but had since been added to it following receipt of confirmation of his allergy from the healthcare team. However, the prison then told us that no instruction had been received from the healthcare team indicating any special dietary needs that Mr C could not manage himself. They acknowledged there had been issues in the past with Mr C not receiving the correct meals, which led to him being offered a job in the kitchens.

While we considered that the prison had demonstrated flexibility in allowing Mr C the freedom to control his food intake, we were unable to conclusively determine the arrangements in place to ensure his dietary needs are met when he is not working in the kitchens. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to clarify the confusion surrounding his dietary requirements, which led to him not receiving some meals.

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

• The prison should write to Mr C to clarify what arrangements are in place to ensure his dietary needs are met, with a copy to kitchen staff and a copy to our office.

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 that the Scottish Government failed to respond to her complaint within a reasonable timeframe. Ms C came to us after waiting a number of months for a response to her complaint. We contacted the Scottish Government five times over the course of four months to request an update on Ms C's complaint. When they failed to provide Ms C with a response within the timeframe we set, we accepted a complaint from Ms C about the Scottish Government's handling of her complaint.

During the course of our investigation, the Scottish Government replied to Ms C's complaint. We found that they had failed to refer Ms C to us at the the end of their complaints process and failed to provide us with information we requested by the deadline set. We considered that the Scottish Government failed to respond to Ms C's complaint within a reasonable timeframe and upheld her complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to respond to her complaint within a reasonable timeframe, keep her updated about delays and refer her to our office at the end of the complaints procedure. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The Scottish Government should follow their Complaints Handling Procedure. They should reflect on the poor handling of Ms C's complaint and set out what action they are taking to prevent similar errors occurring in future.
• The Scottish Government should reflect on the poor handling of our enquiries and set out what action they are taking to ensure more effective communication channels in future. Support can be found through the Complaints Standards Authority: http://www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS)'s handling of her application for funding. Mrs C applied for funding for her course through SAAS. The award was initially granted, however, it was then found that the course was not eligible, as it was not delivered by a publicly funded body. SAAS rescinded the fund for Mrs C's course and advised her of this. Mrs C complained that it was an error on SAAS' part which meant the course appeared to be eligible and it was unreasonable to rescind the funding. Mrs C appealed the decision, however SAAS' view remained the same. In the first response to the appeal SAAS' response referred to a different name for the course, stating the approved funding was for a course different from the one Mrs C was attending. This was not the case and in the second response to the appeal SAAS apologised for the confusion but still considered the decision to rescind the funding was reasonable.

We reviewed the information available relating to the communication and response to the administrative error. It was found that the information on SAAS's website, including this course as an eligible choice, was provided by a third party, not SAAS itself. We found that there had been a level of confusion due to the various names used for the same course, however this stemmed predominantly from information provided by a third party. The initial error that the course was included in the first place also stemmed from information provided by a third party. We considered the actions of SAAS on discovering the error to be reasonable. The course was removed from SAAS' website and SAAS apologised for the error in the initial appeal response. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s booking system is unreasonable. She said that it prevented her from returning to her work and education activities after an arranged visit. Ms C said that when she is scheduled to attend a visit that lasts up to an hour, a three hour slot is assigned and she has to return to her cell after the visit and remain there for the remaining duration of the slot. She was concerned that it would affect her parole if she did not attend activities.

We found that SPS provided a clear rationale (in terms of security and logistics) as to why three hour slots are assigned to individuals when they attend a scheduled visit. The SPS also advised that individuals can be taken to work or education activities after their visit if time permits. They confirmed that it would not affect Ms C's parole or progression if she could not attend activities due to a visit or appointment. We considered the booking system to be reasonable and, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) made inaccurate statements about him in a letter. Mr C disagreed with views expressed by prison staff that were repeated in the letter.

We found that records provided by the SPS supported the content of the letter. While we noted Mr C’s disagreement with the opinions of SPS staff as repeated in the letter and Mr C’s reasons for disagreeing, his disagreement was not itself evidence of maladministration on the part of the SPS. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C submitted a lost property claim to the prison service, alleging that some items of his property had gone missing after he handed his laundry bag in to the prison laundry. Mr C complained to us about the way the prison service handled his lost property claim, and about their handling of his complaint.

We found that Mr C's lost property claim had been handled appropriately. The prison service accepted that Mr C's kitbag had not been returned from the laundry, and had initially offered compensation for a lost t-shirt and lost shorts. They refused to compensate him for the loss of branded boxer shorts, saying they considered these items disposable once in use and explaining that they do not itemise them on prisoner's property cards so cannot track them as they do with other property. After Mr C escalated his complaint and it was investigated further, it became apparent that the t-shirt and shorts had in fact been handed out two months after he submitted his claim. The offer of compensation was therefore retracted.

Mr C said that the prison service had failed to record the number of pairs and brand of boxer shorts handed in, which he said was contrary to prison policy. We thought that the prison service could not reasonably be expected to itemise and note the brand of all items of underwear being handed into prisons, and we considered that their position was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the complaints handling, the prison service had accepted some shortcomings in the original complaints response. Other than this, we found that they had responded within prescribed timescales and had given clear reasons for their decisions. We, therefore, did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was found guilty of a breach of discipline for refusing an order to return to his cell. He submitted a disciplinary appeal, claiming that he had refused to return to his cell as he was being bullied and victimised by other prisoners in the residential hall. He also submitted a complaint that his bullying allegation had not been adequately investigated. His appeal was barred by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) as it was not submitted within 14 days of the decision, as per prison rule 118. The SPS responded to Mr C's complaint, noting that their investigation had found no evidence to substantiate his bullying allegation. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

Mr C complained that the SPS failed to appropriately investigate his complaint. The SPS were unable to provide us with evidence that an appropriate investigation had been carried out. They said that the investigating officer had not produced a written report and had since left the organisation. They told us that they had since improved their process and it is now compulsory for investigating officers to provide a written investigation report. We upheld Mr C's complaint and asked the SPS to provide evidence of their new process.

Mr C also complained about the decision to time limit his disciplinary appeal. The SPS confirmed that they have no discretion to consider an appeal submitted later than 14 days from the date of the decision. They acknowledged that existing guidance and forms do not make this clear and confirmed plans were in place to revise these. As an interim measure, they proposed to issue a Governors  &  Managers Action Notice (GMA) and amend prisoner notices to highlight the 14 day time limit. While the SPS had made it clear to Mr C that they had time limited his appeal as it was outwith the 14 days, they subsequently entered into discussion with him regarding the circumstances he put forward for the late submission. This gave the impression that his late appeal could potentially have been considered had the SPS deemed his circumstances exceptional, when that was not the case. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the lack of evidence of an appropriate investigation of his complaint having been carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Re-investigate Mr C's complaint, ensuring that the findings are appropriately documented.

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

• Until the SPS are able to complete their review of the disciplinary appeal guidance and planned review of the relevant forms, the SPS should raise a GMA highlighting to staff the time limit set out in rule 118, and reminding them of the importance of making prisoners aware of this; and update the prisoner notices on disciplinary appeals to highlight the time limit set out in rule 118. In both instances, it should be made clear that appeals will not be considered outwith this time limit, irrespective of circumstances.

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

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) stopped Mr C's shipping container for inspection. Mr C complained about the amount of time it took SEPA to release the hold on the container and the amount of time it took SEPA to arrange a further inspection. Mr C also complained that SEPA did not communicate reasonably.

We found that, during the period that the hold was on the container, SEPA were undertaking investigations to establish if the container could be returned to Mr  C's load site, and to establish if it was safe for their staff to carry out a further inspection there. We found that the hold on the container was released 12 days before it was returned to Mr C's load site for inspection. We found that the container was not moved as soon as the hold was released because of a disagreement between Mr C and his shipping agent. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint that SEPA took an unreasonable amount of time to release the hold on the container.

We also found that SEPA were in a position to carry out a further inspection of the container five days after the hold on the container was released. However, we found that they were not able to carry out this inspection because the container remained in port due to the disagreement between Mr C and the shipping agent. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that SEPA took an unreasonable amount of time to arrange a further inspection of his container.

Regarding communication, we found that SEPA should have communicated to Mr C, or to his shipping agent, why there was a delay in releasing the hold on the container. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to explain what investigations were taking place regarding the load site before the hold on the container could be released. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Any reasons for a delay in releasing a hold on a shipping container should be communicated to the shipping agent or to the shipper.

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.