Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

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.

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.