Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not provided with an opportunity to attend an internal complaints committee (ICC) in relation to his disciplinary appeal. He provided us with evidence that suggested he was in court on this day, which contradicted the prison's position that he was given an opportunity to attend.

After we indicated to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that we intended to investigate the complaint, the Chair of the ICC reviewed their systems and confirmed that Mr C attended court on the day that the ICC took place. Therefore, he was not able to attend. SPS acknowledged that this should not have happened and stated that they would hold another ICC so that Mr C could attend and put his case across.

Based on Mr C's desired outcomes in his complaint to us, we were satisfied that SPS's actions resolved the complaint. Therefore, we closed our investigation of his complaint as resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled his claim for lost property compensation. Mr C said that several items sent from his cell to the laundry had not been returned.

We were not satisfied that the SPS had undertaken a thorough investigation when Mr C first reported his laundry as missing. Given that prisoners have no control over their property in laundry bags between submitting them and receiving them again, we considered that the prison should have a robust tracking process to show that the laundry bags have been delivered back to the relevant prisoner. We also found that the subsequent review of Mr C's claim was unreasonable. The SPS claimed that the items in question were handed out. However, the only evidence identifying items handed out was the property card, which was not fully completed as Mr C had not signed out the items (although this is required on the card). We also noted that the SPS had provided inconsistent explanations about what happened to Mr C's property. We considered that they failed to handle Mr  C's claim reasonably and upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to fully investigate Mr C's claim of lost laundry. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Reconsider the claim for lost property, taking into account the points contained in our decision.

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

• The SPS should have a system in place to adequately track prisoner's laundry, so that any claim for missing laundry can be fully investigated.

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.