SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his request to have a phone number added to his account was unreasonable. He said an officer told him that his request would be actioned the same day he submitted it but that did not happen. Instead, Mr C's request was actioned within three days. The directions to the prison rules say the governor may allow a prisoner to change their list of pre-approved phone numbers (referred to as a PAN list) as soon as practicable. In addition, the request form clearly states amendments will be processed within five working days. Therefore, we were satisfied the prison's handling of Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint. Mr C also raised concerns about the prison's handling of his complaint. It was unclear if steps were taken by the prison to explore whether the officer had given Mr C misleading information in relation to the time it would take to deal with his request. We asked the prison about that and they told us that the chairperson of the internal complaints committee (ICC) had checked the position and was advised that the information Mr C said he received from an officer was out-of-date but that was not recorded in the written response. In addition, the ICC chairperson agreed to allow the officer Mr C had named as a witness to attend the discussion of the complaint but the officer refused to attend which Mr C said was inappropriate. We were satisfied that the evidence Mr C wanted the officer to bring to the discussion was available to the ICC without having the officer attend. Overall, we were satisfied that the handling of Mr C's complaint was appropriate but we did make some recommendations.

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly maintain the weights and cardiovascular equipment in two fitness rooms within a residential hall, a weights room and cardiovascular room. We did not find evidence to support this and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The SPS had also, however, decided to remove what had been the weights room, and although this decision was discretionary, we were concerned that there was a lack of clarity around the future use of the room. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to the prison's main gym. We found that there was different access to the main gym, but that the prison has the authority to offer this, as the prison rules allow for different provisions to be in place for prisoners located in different parts of the prison. Again, we did not uphold the complaint. Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that, although some information was not recorded as required by the complaints process, they had responded in reasonable terms. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had breached the prison rules by refusing him access to a phone whist staff were searching cells in his area of the prison. We found that the SPS were entitled to do this, under the relevant prison rules and directions, and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint about this matter. We found that the initial response to his complaint had been inadequate and had unnecessarily listed the phone calls that he had been able to make later that day. We also found that the chair of the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) should have met Mr C to discuss his request for witnesses to attend the hearing about his complaint. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to update his driving licence in time prior to his release. The prison said Mr C's release had not been confirmed and because of that, they did not consider it appropriate to update his licence. They said they would reconsider Mr C's request if his release was confirmed. We felt the prison's response to Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406473 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison unreasonably reversed their decision to allow him to move into a shared cell. We found that, as they acknowledged, the prison had made the wrong decision in allowing Mr C to move to a shared cell and, therefore, they were correcting their mistake when they returned him to a single cell. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we decided that the prison should have been more open with Mr C about what had happened. We were also of the view that the Scottish Prison Service should take action to prevent such a mistake from happening again. We made recommendations to address these points.

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to weights and cardiovascular (CV) equipment and facilities. This related to the two fitness rooms within a residential hall, a weights room and CV room and the access to the main prison gym. Mr C was concerned about the removal of the weights room and the lack of maintenance of the CV room equipment. He also complained that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to the prison's main gym. We found that there was different access to the main gym, but that the prison has the authority to offer this, as the prison rules allow for different provisions to be in place for prisoners located in different parts of the prison. We did not find evidence that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to weights and CV equipment and facilities and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, although the SPS's decision to remove the weights room was discretionary, we were concerned that there was a lack of clarity around the future use of this room. Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that, in general, the SPS had adequately investigated and responded to the majority of issues Mr C had raised, but we also found that they had failed to adequately respond to his complaint about a member of staff. We were also concerned that some information had not been detailed on the complaint form. In view of these failings we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately failed to give him the opportunity to make representations prior to seeking to extend his removal from association. A prison can seek approval from Scottish Ministers to stop a prisoner from associating with others to maintain good order and discipline. The prison said Mr C had been unable and unwilling to make representations and it was unlikely that his representations would have been any different from the previous extension request. They also suggested that he was only entitled to make representations if the prison governor felt it was practicable to do so. Mr C disputed that he had been unable and unwilling to make representations and he also said he was entitled to make representations in line with prison rules. The prison rules confirmed that Mr C was entitled to make representations prior to the request being submitted to Scottish Ministers for approval. The rules say that representations should be made in writing by the prisoner or transcribed by an officer or other official on the prisoner's behalf. We obtained a copy of the relevant paperwork and in the section that should be completed by the prisoner, it noted that Mr C was unable and unwilling to complete representations. However, instructions on the paperwork confirm that a witness should sign the form, and give reasons, if the prisoner refuses to complete representations. In Mr C's case, an officer signed the form but failed to note why he was unable and unwilling to give representations. Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish whether Mr C was unable or unwilling, or both, to give representations because the relevant paperwork was incomplete in important aspects. We concluded that the Scottish Prison Service could not adequately evidence that they had given Mr C the opportunity to make representations, or having given him the opportunity, he refused, when seeking to extend his removal from association. In addition, we felt

Mr C complained that the prison would not allow him to have certain hi fi equipment or felt tip pens. Prisons have lists of the sort of items that are, and are not, allowed. Our investigation, which included examination of the relevant list, showed that Mr C's hi fi equipment was above the allowed wattage and that felt tip pens were not allowed because of the potential they offered for concealing inappropriate items such as drugs. We concluded that the prison had acted appropriately in refusing the items. Related reading View Decision Report 201405924 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison allowed him to buy trousers that were not in keeping with the items prisoners were allowed to have, and that they did not tell him about a 12.5 percent additional charge. Mr C also complained that the prison did not take account of his skin condition when providing him with trousers. We found that Mr C should have been aware that he was not allowed to buy black trousers. However, we also found that prison staff were supposed to check whether items ordered were permitted; had this been done, Mr C's order would not have been processed. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. We did not recommend that the prison cover the cost of the trousers as Mr C could have returned them to the external company for a refund, but he chose not to. In terms of the 12.5 percent additional charge, we were not satisfied that the prison had taken reasonable steps to ensure that Mr C was aware of charges for postal orders. The Scottish Prison Service could not provide evidence to support their view that Mr C had signed a disclaimer about the additional charge. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. We found that Mr C had not asked to be assessed by prison health centre staff for his skin condition, meaning no recommendation had been made by a healthcare professional about his condition. This meant the prison did not have to issue him with alternative trousers. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the prison health centre providing appropriate treatment for his chest infection. He said he submitted a number of referral forms to see a nurse but despite this, no one saw him. In addition, Mr C complained about the board's handling of his complaints. The evidence available confirmed that nursing staff attempted to see Mr C regularly in response to his referral forms but because he was not always in the hall at those times, it was not always possible to see him. In addition, the prison health centre took sputum (mucus from the lower airways) samples from Mr C and sent them away for analysis. They also prescribed an antibiotic. In response to Mr C's complaint, the board indicated that he should have remained in his hall to be seen by a nurse. We asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) if it was acceptable for a prisoner to do that and they advised us that prisoners are required to attend work or education each day and they would only be allowed to remain in the hall if they were clearly unfit to report for work or education. In addition, we took independent clinical advice from our medical adviser for their view on the treatment provided to Mr C. They noted that he had been reporting a persistent cough for some time, and because Mr C was an ex-smoker, our adviser questioned the appropriateness of the health centre only taking sputum samples instead of considering whether an x-ray of his chest was needed as outlined by national guidelines. We were satisfied that appropriate attempts were made by nursing staff to see Mr C in response to his referral forms but in light of the comments we received from the SPS, we did ask the board to ensure that everyone was clear on the process in place. In addition, because Mr C continued to report a persistent cough, and because of our adviser's comments, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the treatment he received. In looking at the way the board handled Mr C's complain

Mr C complained that when he transferred from prison 1 to prison 2 some of his property went missing and that this was not properly investigated, although he submitted a claim form in December 2012. He told us that prison 2 had made several attempts to contact prison 1 to have his claim fully investigated but the matter remained unresolved. We found no record of Mr C having submitted a claim form in December 2012. We did find, however, that in January 2013 prison 1 had forwarded various items belonging to him to prison 2, which suggested that there was an issue with his property around this time. We noted that although in August 2013 prison 2 sent prison 1 a claim form that Mr C completed, and made attempts to follow this up, prison 1 did not reach a decision on the claim until April 2014. Although the SPS have no national timescales for resolving lost property claims forms, we concluded that prison 1 delayed unreasonably in responding to Mr C's claim. Furthermore, they did not provide sufficient information to show how they investigated the claim or any reasons to justify their initial compensation offer. As there was evidence of various items having gone missing, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service failed to transfer him to the closest appropriate establishment to his postcode. We identified that the establishment Mr C had in mind was not appropriate as it did not provide a course he was required to complete. He was later moved to an appropriate establishment and listed for the relevant course. He was satisfied with this and decided not to pursue his complaint further. Related reading View Decision Report 201401836 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) delayed in repairing a phone that he reported broken. We found that the SPS had not taken any action to repair the phone for over two weeks after Mr C complained about it and we upheld his complaint. Mr C also complained about the way in which the SPS had handled his complaint about this. In their initial response, they said that the fault had been reported. When we investigated this, we found no evidence that this had happened. When we asked for an explanation, the SPS told us that they had confused this with another problem that was affecting phones in the prison. Mr C then made a further complaint about the matter. In their response to this, the SPS again confused the two problems and told him that the fault had been reported and resolved. This was incorrect and we found that there had been a clear failure by the SPS to investigate and address a relatively straightforward complaint. Their responses to Mr C were clearly inaccurate and we also upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Mr C complained that prison 1 did not properly investigate his claim for his lost property after he submitted two claim forms. When Mr C was transferred from prison 2 to prison 1, he signed on his property card that he had a mobile phone in storage in prison 2, but there was no record of it having being received by prison 1 when he arrived there. Although prison 1 had obtained evidence that Mr C had a mobile phone before transfer, they rejected his claim on the basis that there was no evidence to show that prison 2 sent it. They also said that Mr C had signed a form to say that his property was correct. We found that prison 1 should have pursued the matter with prison 2 on Mr C's behalf, as there was evidence to show that the mobile phone had been in storage there and then gone missing. We acknowledged that prison 2 appeared to have looked for evidence during their investigation of the claim, but we decided that they unreasonably overlooked evidence of the mobile phone having gone missing while in the care of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This has since been acknowledged by the SPS during our investigation. We were also critical there was no evidence to show that prison 1 told Mr C in writing of the reasons why they had rejected his first claim form. In addition, they did not appear to have told him how to appeal their decision.

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his request for access to cell cleaning facilities at the weekends. He was also unhappy with the way the SPS handled his complaint. However, Mr C was freed from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a contact address. Although the SPS provided a contact address, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him there, and we had no option but to close our file on his case. Related reading View Decision Report 201400052 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his property when he was transferred between prisons. He also complained that the SPS did not handle his complaint properly. Mr C was released from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and he did not provide us with a forwarding address. We were unable to make contact with him despite several enquiries. Therefore, we closed his case in line with our procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201305951 as a PDF (10.8 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately ignored instructions issued by the prison health centre. He said he was to be provided with a suitable chair and orthopaedic mattress because of back pain. The prison said they checked with the health centre who confirmed that there was no medical requirement for Mr C to receive the items, but he disputed that. We checked the position with the health board responsible for the prison health centre, who initially told us the prison health centre did support Mr C's request for the chair and mattress. However, the board then told us that this was wrong. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service checked with the prison doctor, who reviewed Mr C's medical record and confirmed that he did not need to be provided with the chair or mattress. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403808 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the adjudicator's handling of his disciplinary hearing was inappropriate. We obtained a copy of the record taken at the hearing, and reviewed the relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance document to assess whether the hearing was carried out appropriately. We were satisfied that the adjudicator's handling of Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and in line with prison rules and the relevant guidance. Related reading View Decision Report 201404247 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison did not follow relevant policy in dealing with his progression through the prison system to less secure conditions, in preparation for his eventual release. Mr C felt that two Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policies about progression were contradictory. He also complained about how the SPS handled his complaint. We looked at the relevant SPS policies and found that they did not set out an automatic progression route with mandatory timescales. Instead, they set out a framework within which SPS staff could assess the needs of, and risks presented by, prisoners. Each prisoner's case is dealt with on its individual merits, taking into account a number of relevant factors, with timescales presented as a guide. One of the policies clearly stated that it was setting out a best case scenario, and that the time taken to progress could be longer or shorter than suggested. We could not see any contradiction, in administrative terms, between the relevant SPS policies. Having looked at the records for Mr C's case, we could not conclude that his prison unreasonably failed to follow policy in dealing with his progression. In addition, we were satisfied that the SPS' handling of Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances. Related reading View Decision Report 201404373 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C submitted four complaint forms to the prison governor alleging assaults by prison staff and issues related to a strip search. He then submitted four more forms the following month, saying that his concerns had not been investigated. In response to the complaint, the governor told Mr C that the allegations of assault had been referred to the police for investigation. However, because the police did not take matters further due to insufficient evidence, the prison did not undertake a local investigation. We upheld Mr C's complaint as our investigation found that, although the police investigation did not find enough evidence to pursue criminal actions, the governor had not clearly demonstrated that the prison had dealt with the complaints. We were critical that despite submitting eight complaint forms directly to the governor, it had not been properly explained to Mr C - or to us - whether staff handled him in accordance with the prison rules, and their control and restraint guidance.

Mr C complained that he was handcuffed in his cell and told by a manager that the handcuffs would be removed when his self-harming urges went away. Mr C said that he had not shown signs of aggression or self-harm, and that the type of handcuffs used were normally for external escorts. Mr C was also unhappy about the length of time it took for the prison governor to respond to his complaint. In responding to the complaint the prison said that the manager had authorised the use of handcuffs for a short time whilst officers searched Mr C because he had said he had an item in his possession that could cause him harm. He was handcuffed to avoid causing any further damage to existing self-inflicted wounds. However, the governor acknowledged that there were other options open to officers rather than using metal handcuffs, and said that they would notify staff of these. We found that records made at the time indicated that Mr C was initially restrained by three officers and then handcuffed by a manager to enable them to search for the item without causing him harm. Nevertheless, the prison had accepted that the use of metal handcuffs was inappropriate and had apologised to Mr C. We were satisfied with the action taken by the prison prior to our involvement, specifically that they apologised directly to Mr C and had discussed with the manager the other options available should a similar incident arise. However, we were critical that the governor took three and a half weeks to respond to the complaint with no justifiable reason given for the delay. Whilst Mr C had received an apology, we made a further recommendation.

Mr C applied to transfer to an English prison to be near his family for visiting purposes. Although his application was granted, this took some time, and Mr C thought it was unlikely that he would be transferred before his liberation date later that year. As a result, Mr C applied for progression to the open estate (an area with less secure prison conditions) for the remainder of his term instead. However, his application to be moved to the open estate was declined as he had not been given an assessment to determine what programmes he would benefit from, or completed any programmes. Although Mr C had indicated he was interested in completing any programmes which were considered useful for him, his assessment had been put on hold due to his request for transfer to an English prison. Mr C complained to our office about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his applications for transfer to an English prison and for the open estate, as well as their handling of his requests to be assessed for programmes. However, Mr C was freed from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a contact address. Although the SPS provided a contact address, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him at this address, and we had no option but to close our file on his case. Related reading View Decision Report 201402386 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that some of his property went missing when he was moved from one prison to another. Mr C disagreed with the outcome of his property claim. He said it was unreasonable for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to say that he was responsible for the property when he was not present when it was packed. We found that the SPS had followed the correct procedures in dealing with Mr C's property. When Mr C entered prison the property was recorded on a property card and was signed into his use. When Mr C was being moved to another prison two officers packed his property and recorded it on the appropriate form. Mr C was not present because he had not adhered to prison rules and was in segregation. As there was no procedural failing on the part of the SPS we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404172 as a PDF (10.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the prison's decision not to allow him to have his hi-fi system in use. He was unhappy as he had been allowed to use this in his previous prison. The prison explained to him that they do not permit the use of systems with detachable speakers. We asked the prison about this and they provided us a copy of their policy which supported their decision. They noted that there was not yet a national policy for permissible electrical items and it was down to the discretion of prison governors to set a local policy for each prison. As the prison's decision was in line with their local policy, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we acknowledged the current potential for inconsistencies across the prison estate and noted that we are aware this was already being looked at, with a view to setting a standardised national policy. Related reading View Decision Report 201403484 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was placed on report for breaching prison rules, for which he was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. Mr C complained that he did not think the prison followed the correct process because the officer that placed him on report was not called to the hearing. We obtained a copy of the record taken at Mr C's hearing which confirmed that prior to the proceeding starting, he was asked if he was prepared to accept the written evidence presented without requiring the reporting officer to appear in person. Mr C confirmed that he was, however, the record noted that he asked for the reporting officer to attend once the hearing had started. In addition, the record also confirmed Mr C said he understood the charge and the purpose of the hearing. The prison rules say a prisoner can request that a witness be called and the request must be granted when the prison is reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give will be relevant to the determination of the charge. In addition, the relevant staff guidance says that the reporting officer must be present should the prisoner or the adjudicator consider it necessary. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) also advised us that a prisoner could request for the reporting officer to be present at any time during the process but if they had already indicated that they were prepared to accept the evidence presented without the need for the reporting officer to be present then the decision on whether to agree to a later request to call the reporting officer was at the discretion of the adjudicator. We were satisfied that Mr C was given the opportunity to call the reporting officer and because of that we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did ask the SPS to review the guidance to ensure it clearly reflected the position.