SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C told us he applied for transfer to a prison elsewhere in the UK for family reasons. He said there was a delay in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) dealing with his transfer application, and that the SPS lost his application. The SPS investigated what happened to Mr C’s application. Although they were unable to identify exactly when and how it went missing, they accepted that they misplaced the application and that there was an unreasonable delay in identifying that it was missing. The SPS did not provide us with their policy, procedure or guidance relating to the administration of cross-border transfer applications. It was not clear to us what the SPS learned from their investigation into this incident to ensure it would not happen again. We concluded that there was no reliable system in place to log the receipt of transfer applications and to track their progress, both at the prison and possibly at SPS headquarters. We upheld Mr C’s complaints and made a recommendation to address our concerns.

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his progression to less secure conditions had been unreasonable. In particular, Mr C said the punishment part of his sentence had expired four years ago and that he was five years over his progression date. He said he had been told several times that he would progress to open (lowest security) conditions but it had not happened. The decision on whether to progress a prisoner to less secure conditions is a discretionary one for the risk management team (RMT - the group responsible for considering whether a prisoner is suitable to progress to less secure conditions) to take. We cannot question their decision. In looking at Mr C's complaint, our role was to assess whether in dealing with his case, the prison had applied the relevant policies and procedures appropriately. The evidence available showed that the prison acknowledged Mr C had made good progress. However, they wanted him to evidence the progress he had made. Therefore, they had not recommended his progression to less secure conditions. We did not see any evidence to suggest that the prison had not followed the relevant policies and procedures appropriately in Mr C's case. Therefore, we considered that the prison’s handling of Mr C's progression to less secure conditions had been reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201503020 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison kept him locked in his cell for 23 hours each day for several weeks, without completing the relevant paperwork such as that relating to rule 95 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011. Rule 95 provides for the confinement and custody of prisoners, and allows prisoners to be removed from association with other prisoners. Mr C also complained about how the prison dealt with his complaints. We found that rule 95 had been applied at the start of the period Mr C complained about, when he was in the prison's segregation unit. There is a difference of opinion about what happened after Mr C left segregation and returned to his cell. Mr C said he was kept in his cell, but the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said Mr C chose to lock himself in his cell. When Mr C complained to the prison, it was clear that he did not want to remain locked in his cell each day. It appeared to us that prison staff were trying to act in Mr C's best interests. However, after Mr C complained, the prison should have applied rule 95 again, but they did not. The authority to keep Mr C in his cell in this way came from rule 95. Applying it would have meant that the prison had the authority either to move Mr C back to the segregation unit, or to keep him in his cell awaiting transfer to another prison. The SPS acknowledged that responses to Mr C's complaints were not as good as they should have been, and that one response was late. We also found that the prison were using an old version of the complaints form. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained that his partner (Ms A) was banned from visiting him, and that after the ban was lifted Ms A would have to visit him in closed facilities for nine months. Mr C also complained that the prison did not consider his complaint properly, and that prison staff annotated part of the prison complaint form that was for his use. We found that rule 77 of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 gave the prison governor very broad discretion to ban a visitor, and did not state a time limit for a ban. Given this, we could not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. In most other respects, we were concerned about the prison's handling of this matter. Although rule 78 allows a governor to order that visits must be held in closed facilities, it states that such an order must be reviewed by the governor not less than once in every three months. In this case, the prison put the onus on Ms A after a nine month period, rather than on the governor not less than once in every three months as stated in the prison rules. We were of the view that the prison's letter to Ms A about the ban and the closed visits did not provide clear information about these restrictions and how they could be lifted. Complaints that go to a prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) should be handled in line with rule 123 and the Scottish Prison Service's own complaints handling guidance. We found that the prison did not follow relevant parts of the prison rules and the guidance in relation to assistance for Mr C at the ICC hearing and calling witnesses. We were also concerned about the language used in the ICC's note of the hearing; and about the annotation of the complaint form by prison staff, as the form is the record of the complaint made and responses given at each stage of the process. Given the process failings and issues we identified, we upheld the remaining aspects of Mr C's complaint and we made nine recommendations.

Mr C complained that a member of prison staff had acted unreasonably by making a comment which he felt was discriminatory and constituted harassment. We carefully considered the information Mr C had provided and sought further information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), which included a copy of their investigation into Mr C's equality and diversity complaint. The investigation found that there was a basis for unintentionally caused harassment in relation to a protected characteristic. Even though the member of staff did not mean to cause Mr C harm, Mr C found the comment to be offensive and humiliating, particularly as he was unaware of the context in which it had been written. We upheld his complaint that the member of staff had acted unreasonably in making the comment. As a result of Mr C's complaint, the prison had apologised to Mr C. They had also taken steps to ensure that the member of staff was aware of how his actions had affected Mr C, and identified relevant training. The SPS had also used this case as a case study at a recent national meeting about equality and diversity, and it was to be raised at the next local meeting. Therefore, no recommendations were required. We noted that the letter to Mr C communicating the outcome of the equality and diversity investigation could have been clearer and written in plain English. We highlighted this to the SPS. Related reading View Decision Report 201502802 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was put on closed visits (where a prisoner and their visitor cannot make physical contact) following an allegation of fighting. The prison was unable to demonstrate they had followed the correct process as paperwork which should have been completed was not obtainable. For this reason, we upheld the complaint. As the prison had already noted the missing paperwork and were conducting a review, we asked them to let us know the outcome of the review. Mr C was no longer on closed visits, and we asked the prison to apologise to Mr C.

Mr C complained because he said the adjudicator failed to follow the proper process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, Mr C said he was not allowed to cross-examine the first witness who was called to give evidence against him. He also said he had wanted to call three witnesses but was only permitted one, and he was not allowed to put forward points in mitigation. The prison rules confirm that the adjudicator must allow the prisoner the opportunity to call witnesses where permitted to do so, and must allow the prisoner to cross-examine any other witness. The prison rules also confirm that the adjudicator has discretion when deciding whether to allow the prisoner to call witnesses. We reviewed the disciplinary paperwork and questioned the adjudicator. The paperwork confirmed that Mr C wanted to have the witnesses against him appear in person so the adjudicator called to the hearing the officer who reported Mr C. The paperwork also confirmed that the adjudicator permitted two of Mr C's witnesses. The paperwork also noted the response put forward by Mr C in mitigation. In light of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the adjudicator followed the proper process and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502634 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison did not respond to his complaint to them. Our investigation showed that the officer who would have replied to the complaint considered that the language and tone of it were inappropriate, and that he told Mr C this, inviting him to resubmit the complaint with more appropriate wording. Mr C did so, and the officer then replied to the complaint. We considered it was important that the officer did not simply refuse to answer the complaint. He explained to Mr C what he thought was wrong with it and gave him the chance to put that right. When Mr C followed his advice, he replied to the complaint. We considered that was an appropriate approach. Related reading View Decision Report 201502568 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said he issued a letter to his solicitor and he requested that it be sent by special delivery. However, Mr C said an officer told him that his letter had been lost and asked him to resubmit it, which he did. Mr C said that it was unreasonable that his original letter was lost and that there had been an unreasonable delay in issuing the letter he resubmitted. He also complained that the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint. In response to Mr C's complaint, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said it was unacceptable that Mr C's letter was lost. However, when we made enquiries with the SPS, they told us the officer identified by Mr C in his complaint had said he did not tell Mr C that his letter had been lost. Instead, the officer said Mr C approached him to say that a letter he had sent by standard delivery to his solicitor had not arrived. The officer said he advised Mr C to resubmit the letter. There was no other evidence available to support Mr C's position that his original letter had been lost by the prison. We also looked at whether there had been an unreasonable delay in the SPS issuing Mr C's letter. The evidence available confirmed that the prison deducted the special delivery postage fee from Mr C's account, but his letter did not reach its destination until four days later. The SPS explained that all prisoner mail being sent by recorded or special delivery had to be hand-delivered to the nearest post office by a member of staff. They said it could not always be done on the day the letters were collected from prisoners. In Mr C's case, the SPS explained that his letter was collected on a Friday, taken to the post office after the weekend, before being delivered to its recipient on the Tuesday. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. However, we did agree that the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint. It was apparent that steps were only taken to speak with the officer identif

An escorting agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), transferred Mr C from hospital to their escort vehicle in order to transport him back to prison. Mr C complained about the way in which the escorting agency carried out that transfer and about their handling of his complaint. When the escorting officers arrived to transfer him to the vehicle, they attempted to use a restraint method but would not explain why to Mr C. He resisted and, therefore, they carried him through the hospital to the vehicle. Mr C complained to us about being carried in full view of other people in the hospital and about the way in which they had carried him - for example, bending his back inappropriately and laying him face down on the floor when they needed a break from carrying him. Our investigation found that, although an escorting officer had received authority from the agency's control centre for the restraint method, that was inappropriate. We also found Mr C should not have been moved in that way, and that such techniques were not taught, recognised or approved. We upheld this part of the complaint. Mr C also had a number of complaints about the way the agency handled his complaint, such as that their reply did not address all of his concerns. Our investigation showed that their investigation of the complaint was thorough and appropriate, but we agreed with Mr C's complaints about their reply, which gave very little information. Our investigation showed that the investigation by the agency had revealed shortcomings and indicated that action, such as staff training, needed to be taken. However, their reply to Mr C gave no indication that any shortcomings had been identified or that any action would be taken as a result of his complaint. We upheld this part of the complaint. Our investigation found significant shortcomings, however, our only recommendation was that the agency send a written apology to Mr C. This was beca

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) following their refusal of his application to be released under a Home Detention Curfew (HDC). At the first stage of the application process, the decision letter from the SPS stated that his application was refused because the address he had proposed was assessed as being unsuitable. The letter requested an alternative address. Mr C appealed this decision, stating the reasons he felt that the address was suitable. He also provided an alternative address in the event that the decision remained the same. His appeal was also unsuccessful. The decision letter stated that not only was the address he provided unsuitable, he was also an unsuitable candidate. He attempted to get further information about this decision and to submit a further appeal. However, this was refused, and he was told he had exhausted the appeals process. In answer to our enquiries, the SPS stated that Mr C had been assessed at the first stage as being an unsuitable candidate for release but that they had failed to communicate this to him. This was because a standard letter had been used that was meant to be used solely when applications were refused due to an unsuitable address. We felt that this meant Mr C had unreasonably been restricted from making a proper appeal of the decision and upheld his complaint.

Mr C complained that his prison had inadequate arrangements for him to access documents that were held for him in the reception area. Mr C also complained about how the prison handled his complaints about this matter. During our investigation, Mr C told us that legal action he was taking against the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) would refer to incidents when he had not been granted access to his documents, which were a key part of his complaint to us. We decided that we could not take any further action on the complaint until the legal action was concluded and then, if Mr C returned to us with this complaint, we could only look at anything that had not, or could not, have been considered in court. Therefore, we closed the file on Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502172 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to carry out a generic assessment (GA) for him (an assessment of a prisoner to determine what work programmes they should carry out in order to progress from a closed prison to a facility for life sentence prisoners, prior to them moving to open prison). He raised a number of issues, including that the SPS unreasonably refused to carry out a GA until he had signed a document outlining what would be discussed at one-to-one sessions he was required to attend with social work and then attended these sessions. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to reasonably follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaint about the GA. The SPS said that a GA could not take place until Mr C completed the social work one-to-one sessions, and that these sessions superseded the GA process. However, the SPS were not able to refer this office to any document which stated that this was the case, and the advice from the SPS’s senior psychologist at their headquarters was that there was no documentation to support this. The senior psychologist said that work with social work should not negate the need for a GA. Given concerns raised by the SPS regarding Mr C’s co-operation in the social work one-to-one sessions, it did not seem unreasonable that he was asked to sign a document specifying an agreed code of conduct for the sessions. However, as the one-to-one sessions were separate from the GA process, we were critical of the SPS for refusing to carry out a GA until Mr C had signed a code of conduct document and completed the sessions. We also found that the SPS failed to reasonably follow their complaints procedure, and we considered that their actions prolonged the complaints process unnecessarily in this case.

The decision was taken to return Mr C to more secure conditions. This happened when concerns were raised about his appearance after his return to prison from an outside work placement in the community. Mr C complained because he said the proper process was not followed prior to that decision being taken. In particular, Mr C said he was not placed on report for breaching prison rules or his licence conditions. He was also unhappy that a more in-depth drug test was not carried out to prove he had not taken any illicit substances. Mr C also questioned why he had retained his low supervision level after being returned to closed conditions. There is nothing contained within the prison rules or the relevant guidance to suggest that Mr C should have been placed on report. In addition, the prison used the normal drugs testing processes available to them. The decision to carry out any further testing would have been at the discretion of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), as was the decision to allow Mr C to retain his low supervision level. We were satisfied that the process had been followed appropriately by the SPS, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201500951 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C wanted to be transferred to the prison nearest his home for family reasons, and he complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not taken his family circumstances into account in dealing with his transfer request. We found that the SPS were aware of Mr C's family circumstances and had discussed them with him. However, the SPS had also explained to Mr C the reasons why a transfer to his local prison was unlikely. There was no evidence that the SPS had failed to follow relevant procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407818 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C had several wage deduction punishments imposed by the prison for different offences. Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately applied these punishments consecutively (so that the wage deductions were applied one after the other and continued for several months) instead of concurrently (such that each day of wage deduction counted towards all of the current punishments). He said that the prison guidance required punishments to be applied concurrently, unless they were specifically recorded as consecutive. An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was held, which agreed with Mr C's interpretation of the guidance and ordered a review of Mr C’s wage deductions. However, the review did not take place, and Mr C complained about this. A second ICC was held which disagreed with the first decision and found that Mr C’s wages deductions were being applied correctly. After investigating Mr C’s complaints we found that the guidance on this issue was unclear, and that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) was interpreting this differently in relation to wages and other kinds of punishments. Although we considered either interpretation would be reasonable, we were critical that the SPS was using two inconsistent interpretations at the same time. However, in Mr C’s case, we found that the approach taken was permitted by the rules and guidance, and Mr C had been treated consistently with other prisoners in a similar situation. Therefore, we found that the application of the wage deduction punishments was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that it was unreasonable that the recommendation of the first ICC was not carried out (due to an administrative error), and that Mr C was not given any apology for this. We were also critical that Mr C was given two inconsistent ICC decisions, as the ICC is the final stage for a prison complaint and care should be taken to ensure the decision is robust. Therefore, we upheld this aspect

Mr C complained that his prison failed to provide him with support to deal with his drug addiction. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not responsible for providing this particular support, as it was a matter for the NHS. Mr C said he was seeking specific medication, and that the SPS should transfer him to another prison in the hope of getting the medication. The SPS said this was not a valid reason for transfer because a prison transfer would not necessarily resolve Mr C’s wish to obtain specific medication. This is because prescribing medication is a matter for the NHS, not the SPS. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201405899 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow the relevant policy when dealing with his progression. In particular, Mr C said he remained in closed conditions six years after the expiry of the punishment part of his sentence when he should have progressed through less secure conditions before reaching open conditions. In response to Mr C's complaint on the matter, the SPS said they were managing his progression in line with the relevant policies in place. In particular, in relation to those prisoners serving a life sentence, the SPS risk management and progression guidance indicates that a prisoner's preparation-for-release phase can start no earlier than four years before the expiry of the punishment part of their sentence. However, the guidance clearly states that the timing describes the best-case scenario and other factors such as a prisoner's supervision level, conduct in custody, drug test results and participation in offending behaviour programmes may affect the timing of the release phase. In addition, the SPS told us that in Mr C's case, whilst the punishment part of his sentence had expired, he had outstanding programme needs that must be addressed before he could be considered for progression to less secure conditions. It is clear that the timings described in the guidance set out the best-case scenario and each prisoner’s case will be dealt with on its own merits, taking into account their own individual circumstances. The guidance does not suggest there is an automatic progression route for prisoners with fixed timescales. Instead, it sets out a framework within which the SPS can assess the needs of, and risks presented by, individual prisoners. The evidence available in Mr C's case indicated that his progression was being managed by the SPS in line with the relevant policy and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404325 as a PDF (11.48 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that an inaccurate statement had been inappropriately recorded in a note outlining the risk management team's (RMT) discussion of his case. He said that the statement indicated that several attempts had been made to engage him in a type of therapy. Mr C disputed that. In response to his complaint, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said it was not possible or helpful to trace who made the statement. However, it was agreed that the RMT should discuss Mr C's denial that he had refused to engage with the therapy at their next meeting. We asked the SPS to tell us whether the statement recorded by the RMT about Mr C was accurate and based on factual information. The SPS provided extracts from the notes of discussions held at various meetings which they felt supported the statement recorded. The SPS also explained that whilst working with Mr C in general, staff would have used the therapy techniques but he would not have been aware of that. They accepted that it was not clear from the statement recorded by the RMT that this was the case. The SPS acknowledged that the statement implied Mr C had been provided with specific work, not that techniques were being used during general work with him. In addition, the SPS told us that the RMT had not discussed the matter again as had been agreed. In considering Mr C's complaint, we looked at whether the statement recorded was accurate and whether it had been recorded appropriately. In our view, the statement led the reader to believe that attempts to have Mr C engage in therapy work were unsuccessful. We considered that whilst the statement was not necessarily inaccurate, it was not completely accurate either. We were concerned that the language used was misleading, and open to misinterpretation and because of that, we considered that the information had been recorded inappropriately. We were also concerned because, in their written response to Mr C's complaint, the SPS noted an inaccurate reflection of the misleadin

Mr C complained that he was inappropriately released from prison on interim liberation on a Sunday. He also complained that there was an unreasonable delay in assigning his low supervision level and that the handling of his application for early release under the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme was inappropriate. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that Mr C was granted interim liberation on the Friday but prison staff only noticed the fax sent by the court on the Sunday. Because of that, there was a delay in releasing Mr C on interim liberation. Therefore, whilst we did not see any evidence to suggest that it was inappropriate to release a prisoner on a Sunday, we did consider that there had been a delay in releasing Mr C on interim liberation so we upheld his complaint. In addition, the SPS told us Mr C was assigned low supervision level but his computerised record was not updated until a month later. This meant that Mr C was unable to apply for HDC as quickly as he should have been. Therefore, we upheld this complaint. Finally, Mr C received a letter indicating that his HDC application had been considered in full, but it went on to say that he was not a suitable candidate for early release because further information was required. We asked the SPS why a letter had been issued to Mr C refusing his HDC application but also suggesting that further information was needed. They told us that was normal process. The SPS also said information was missing from Mr C's community assessment report. However, the information they told us was missing was actually available in the report. We agreed that the handling of Mr C's HDC application was inappropriate and upheld the complaint.

Mr C repeatedly pressed the call button in his cell and was placed on a disciplinary report by prison officers. Mr C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about this because he said he pressed the call button because he was unwell. Mr C then complained to us about how the SPS handled his complaint. We found there was an unreasonable delay in the SPS dealing with Mr C's complaints, and that his initial complaint was not handled in line with the relevant guidance. Mr C made more than one complaint to the SPS, and his last complaint to them was dealt with at all stages of the process by the same officer, which we found to be unreasonable. We also found that the responses provided to Mr C were not in keeping with the complaints guidance and were not entirely reasonable in the circumstances. In addition, we found that in dealing with Mr C's last complaint, the SPS did not handle his request for witnesses in line with the complaints guidance. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not transfer him to another prison nearer to his family, so they could visit him. It was clear that Mr C was frustrated that his family could not visit, as they lived some distance away from his prison. However, we found that the SPS made reasonable efforts to transfer him nearer to his family over a period of time. Unfortunately, this was stalled for a number of valid reasons, including operational difficulties faced by Mr C's preferred prison. The SPS eventually managed to transfer Mr C to the prison nearest to his family. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402869 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C raised a number of complaints with the prison about disciplinary reports that were noted on his computerised record. Mr C asked the prison to provide copies of the relevant paperwork in relation to each report or remove them from his record. The prison confirmed that there was no paperwork available to support the particular entries Mr C had complained about. However, the prison said although the paperwork could not be located that, in itself, was not reason to doubt that the reports existed. The complaint we investigated was that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to remove disciplinary reports from Mr C's record. The SPS disciplinary hearings guide says that the disciplinary paperwork should be retained for the period the prisoner remains in custody or three years after the outcome of the hearing, in case of a subsequent complaint or legal action. In addition, the SPS prisoner records retention schedule confirms that disciplinary paperwork should be retained for five years after the date of the hearing. In relation to Mr C's complaint, the SPS told us the paperwork relating to one of the reports was in storage but they were unable to access it at the time of responding to our enquiries. In addition, they were able to locate some of the disciplinary paperwork in relation to another report but they could not locate other paperwork and were unable to explain why. The SPS told us Mr C had accumulated over 140 disciplinary reports whilst in custody and, because of that, he was more susceptible to administrative errors. It was clear that the disciplinary paperwork for each of the reports in question should have been retained by the SPS given that the timing of them fell within that outlined by both the disciplinary hearings guide and the records retention schedule. In relation to the paperwork that could not be located, the SPS were unable to provide evidence to support their position that the breaches of discipline occurred because the

Ms C was given a life sentence in 2011 and throughout her time in custody she had not progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, she complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to appropriately support her progression which meant that she would not be in a position to satisfy the parole board's requirements for release. In line with the normal process, the SPS assessed Ms C's suitability for offending behaviour programmes. She met the criteria for the Female Offending Behaviour Programme. However, it was reported that Ms C had indicated that she would find group work intimidating and she wanted to be offered an alternative way to complete the work. Normally, a prisoner is required to address their offending behaviour through groupwork before they can be considered for progression to less secure conditions. In recognition of Ms C's concerns, the prison arranged for preparatory work to take place, and the outcome of that work was reported to the prison's risk management team. In that report, it was noted that the preparatory work undertaken with Ms C was very similar to the programme work she would be required to participate in and she had been able to engage ppropriately. Therefore, the prison concluded that Ms C should participate in the programme prior to her application for progression to less secure conditions being considered. It was clear Ms C felt unable to participate in group work. However, the evidence available indicated that the prison took appropriate action in an effort to support her participation in group work. In addition, the decision on how a prisoner should undertake offence-related work is a matter for the SPS to decide. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305621 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was escorted to hospital. An officer packed some of Mr C's clothing into a bag to take to hospital. Mr C then submitted a claim to the prison because he said that the clothing that was packed by the officer had gone missing. The prison did not uphold Mr C's claim. He complained to us that the prison's handling of his claim for lost property was unreasonable because staff failed to investigate the matter properly. In addition, he said staff incorrectly marked the missing items as 'condemned' (destroyed at the request of the prisoner) on his property card. Mr C said he asked staff to remove the missing items from his property card as he said that the items had been lost by staff. Mr C's property card suggested that the items he claimed were missing were in his use before being condemned by staff. Mr C disputed asking staff to condemn the property but the evidence available showed that he submitted a condemn mandate form which clearly states that the items listed will be condemned, therefore, we concluded that staff appropriately condemned the items. In addition, Mr C's care plan from the time in question confirmed that he was permitted to have his own clothing in use, and the record completed on the day he was taken to hospital did not show that any property was taken with Mr C to or from hospital. In light of the evidence available, we concluded that the prison's handling of Mr C's claim was appropriate. The information we saw demonstrated that the prison's decision on Mr C's claim was based on the evidence available and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint. Having reviewed Mr C's complaint forms, we also considered that the prison's handling of his complaints was reasonable. We recognised that Mr C considered that the prison failed to properly investigate the loss of his initial claim form. However, in their response, the prison confirmed that the form could not be located and they apologised for that. The prison also invited Mr C to s