SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the way his application for home detention was dealt with. He told us that the decision was based on outdated information about him. He said that a member of staff involved with the application was a former neighbour. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were entitled to take into account information about Mr C's past history. We found that the issue of conflict of interest had been considered and had been dismissed because the person concerned was not involved in decision-making. However, whilst the SPS had explained this to Mr C they had not kept a proper record of the conversation and had not explained it in writing to Mr C. Mr C told us that the proper process had not been followed in dealing with his appeals. We agreed in reviewing the case that Mr C's appeals had not been logged or responded to in the way they should have. We found that the original reason given to Mr C for the refusal of home detention was incorrect and, in effect, encouraged him to make a new application from a different address which had no prospect of being approved. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, but as the SPS had accepted their failings and had taken steps taken to address the issues directly with the members of staff concerned, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201403651 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way the prison handled an item of mail that had been sent to him from his solicitor. In particular, Mr C considered that the item of mail has been opened before it was given to him. Mr C also said that the prison failed to handle his complaint on the matter appropriately. Our investigation found that the prison had a system in place which allowed staff to identify and record any damaged letters that arrived at the prison. They also had a process in place for staff to follow when an item of privileged mail - which included mail from a prisoner's solicitor - is opened in error. In Mr C's case, the prison advised that they did not consider his item of mail to be damaged, or opened in error, and because of that, the procedures referred to were not applied. Therefore, we considered the prison's handling of Mr C's mail to be reasonable. We also considered that the prison's overall handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints. However, during our investigation we did identify some issues that we made recommendations to the Scottish Prison Service about.

Mr C complained that because the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately process his property, he lost two items. Mr C said that they failed to record or itemise his belongings correctly, failed to place them in sealed bags and mixed them up with those of another prisoner. The evidence showed that at several stages the SPS failed to follow their procedures and appropriately process Mr C's property, and it was clear from their own investigation of his complaint that they had found failings. However, the SPS did not appear to have taken any action to remedy these, despite repeated prompts from us to do so, and we criticised them for this.

Mr C complained that a prison manager had refused to contact the on-call doctor after Mr C was sick and got something stuck in his throat, causing him chest pain. Mr C said that the prison did not act in accordance with the prison rules because a healthcare professional must be notified of any prisoner whose physical or mental condition appears to require attention. He also complained that staff removed various items from his cell contrary to the prison rules that set out that sufficient bedding must be provided for a prisoner's warmth and health. He said he was cold during the night and suffered pain the next morning. In responding to the complaint, the prison governor explained that Mr C was being managed under a suicide risk management strategy because of self-harming, which meant staff had to carry out 15 minute observations in accordance with his care plan. As Mr C had hidden under the bed, staff had to remove various items that were considered potentially harmful. This allowed staff to maintain their duty of care to him by being able to freely observe him. We found that the officers who were observing Mr C raised an incident report that he had handed them an item which he had apparently vomited. However, there was no evidence to show that they had witnessed him being sick or were aware of anything stuck in his throat. Nevertheless, we were concerned that staff did not check in more detail and question why Mr C had the item, given that for safety reasons he was not allowed anything in his cell at this time. Had staff properly investigated this, it is likely they would have established what had happened and so, on balance, we upheld the complaint. We did not find any evidence to show that the prison acted unreasonably in removing items from Mr C's cell, as staff were required to clearly observe him for his safety, in line with his care plan. We were, however, critical that the governor had not responded to Mr C's complaint about staff not contacting the

Mr C complained that he was not given a mattress or bedding on a particular evening after the prison placed him in segregation. He said that he had not self-harmed, displayed erratic behaviour or damaged property until after he was moved to another cell. We did not find evidence to support comments by a prison officer that Mr C damaged property immediately before being transferred to a segregation cell. Nevertheless, there was evidence suggesting he had self-harmed, and that staff had tried to allow him to remain in his usual cell. However, when staff tried to remove items from his cell for safety reasons Mr C made further suicidal comments, which resulted in him being transferred to a safer environment, in accordance with the suicide risk procedure. There was evidence to show that attempts were made to place him under observation in two segregation cells. However, he damaged one of the cells by removing the electrical sockets, and attempted to do similar damage to the other one. This resulted in him being transferred to a special cell with no sockets. He was noted to be non-compliant with staff and a decision was taken not to give him bedding or open the cell door because of his unpredictable behaviour and past history. The prison have a duty to ensure that a prisoner is provided with sufficient bedding for warmth and health. However, they also have discretion to remove items from a cell as they see fit. Whilst it was not ideal that Mr C had no bedding, the room was heated and he had access to a sleeping plinth. We found no evidence to show that the prison failed to follow their procedures when managing Mr C under the suicide risk management strategy. Related reading View Decision Report 201304655 as a PDF (11.44 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison failed to deal appropriately with his requests to be transferred to a different prison. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are entitled to decide how best to manage the prison population. Therefore, it is up to them to decide whether or not to grant transfer requests, taking into account all relevant information. We cannot question these decisions unless there is evidence that they have not been taken properly. Neither can we have a prisoner placed in a particular prison. Our role is to consider whether the SPS act in line with relevant processes or procedures. We looked at information provided by Mr C and the SPS, and we found that although it took a number of months for Mr C to be transferred, this was reasonable in the circumstances. It was clear that SPS staff made reasonable efforts to have Mr C transferred to an appropriate prison; however, in doing so, they had to take into account several factors about the receiving prison's population, in addition to Mr C's own situation. We were satisfied that the SPS dealt with Mr C's transfer requests appropriately and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402380 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C tried to collect their son's property from a prison but were unable to do so. They complained that the prison failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that they could collect the property and did not respond appropriately to their complaint. In response, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had told Mr and Mrs C that they could not collect the property because staff had not taken it to the correct collection area. However, in responding to our enquiries, they confirmed that the prison's actions in handling the property were in fact correct. They explained that the problem occurred because, when Mr and Mrs C tried to collect the property, the member of staff in the collection area was unaware that it was there. Although the SPS confirmed that the prison were reviewing the process, we upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation. In considering whether the prison responded appropriately to their complaint, we identified that the response contained a number of inaccuracies and because of that, we also upheld this part of Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Mr C complained to the prison because he considered that staff had failed to follow his care plan appropriately. He then complained to us that the prison's investigation of his complaint was inadequate even though they upheld it and agreed to take forward changes. In particular, Mr C did not consider that some of what they had said about his behaviour was accurate and he felt they did not respond fully to the issues he raised. We obtained copies of the evidence that the prison looked at as part of their investigation of Mr C's complaint. We identified that there was information to support the prison's version of events in relation to Mr C's behaviour even though he disagreed. However, it was clear that the prison failed to acknowledge, or respond to, all of the issues Mr C raised but we were satisfied that the overall outcome of the complaint was appropriate. Therefore, we concluded that the prison's investigation was adequate and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403288 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison did not provide a meal to mark a religious holiday. We noted that there was no requirement on the prison to provide such a meal. However, our investigation indicated that they did provide a meal which was better than usual meals and which was intended to mark the religious holiday. The prison said they had also taken the opportunity to broaden the understanding of other prisoners who were not observing the holiday by making the menu available to all prisoners and by including an explanation on the menu. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403285 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained because he said the prison was paying him an unfair wage. He also said they failed to handle his complaint appropriately. Our investigation highlighted that there were prisoners employed in the same work party working the same hours as Mr C but receiving a higher wage than him. A new work timetable was introduced by the prison prior to Mr C's arrival and because of that, the hours those prisoners previously worked were reduced. The SPS national wage earning policy says that prisoners should not be penalised for wage earning if work or activity is reduced due to operational reasons. As a result, the prison continued to pay those prisoners the wage they received prior to their hours being reduced. In Mr C's case, he began work after the new timetable was brought in. As he was being paid in line with the policy in place at the time we, therefore, did not uphold his complaint. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the prison handled his complaint to them. Related reading View Decision Report 201403212 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison refused his request for escorted day absence (EDA) so he could visit a relative who was medically unable to travel to the prison. Mr C said his previous prisons had granted him EDAs to see the same relative, and the situation had not changed, so he could not understand why his request was refused. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 and the Scottish Prison Rules (Escorted Day Absence) Direction 2011 set out the criteria for EDAs. It is clear from this legislation that prison governors have discretion to decide whether an EDA application is being made in exceptional circumstances. The SPSO cannot challenge this discretion. However, even where there is discretion, such decisions must be justified on the basis of available evidence, and this information should be recorded. This ensures that, where appropriate, the process used to reach such decisions can be scrutinised, to ensure that the process is followed appropriately and, therefore, the decisions are not arbitrary. In Mr C's case, neither his prison nor the Scottish Prison Service centrally were able to provide us with a copy of his completed EDA application. Therefore, there was no evidence that the EDA process was followed appropriately to its completion. In addition, Mr C's prison did not explain in their responses to his complaints, or in their response to our enquiry, why they did not consider his case to be exceptional circumstances. Given this, we upheld Mr C's complaint. While we understand the need for prison governors to be able to make decisions in their prison based on local conditions and the specific circumstances of individual cases, the apparent lack of guidance on what might be considered exceptional circumstances for an EDA could lead to apparent unfair inconsistency between individual prisons which is difficult to explain. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C complained that his prison failed to follow relevant procedures in providing him with food; specifically, that one meal provided to him was lower than the required temperature. Mr C said he saw food records which had missing days and dates, and that he spoke to staff who told him a meal had not been probed to check its temperature. Mr C said he had lost trust in the prison's ability to provide meals that were safe to eat. We have no role in ensuring the health and safety of prison food. Our role in this case was to consider whether the prison acted in line with relevant processes or procedures. We looked at the food records and found that some entries were missed from the daily hot temperature record sheet. This evidence was accepted by the prison when they dealt with Mr C's complaint. It meant that the prison were unable to demonstrate that meals served each day had been probed, to ensure they were above the required minimum temperature of 63°C. As this was not compliant with the prison's food safety manual and The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, we upheld Mr C's complaint. In response to Mr C's complaint the prison carried out an audit of compliance with the food safety manual over a number of weeks, which we found to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. However, we were concerned that one part of the prison did not provide the necessary data sheets for the audit and, therefore, we made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained that the prison he was in failed to make adequate arrangements for the provision of halal food. He said that he wanted the imam for the prison to taste random halal meals, as he considered that the halal goods brought into the prison were not halal by the time they reached prisoners' plates. The prison rules say that the prison governor must taste and check samples of the food. They must also ensure that every prisoner is provided with food that takes into account, as far as practical, the prisoner's age, health and religious, cultural, dietary or other requirements. However, there is no requirement for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to arrange for an imam to taste halal food. During our investigation, the prison told us that halal food is prepared separately, and that utensils are sterilised before use to prevent cross-contamination. They said that, once the meat is prepared, it is placed into individual containers and is then refrigerated or frozen and the containers stored in separate sections. They also sent us halal certificates from their meat suppliers. Mr C also wanted his food to be served by a Muslim prisoner. Ideally, halal food would be served by a practising Muslim and we could understand Mr C's concerns that, in the prison, it was not. However, there was no requirement for the SPS to arrange this and the decision on who served halal food in the prison was one for them to make, which we could not question in the absence of any evidence of maladministration in the taking of that decision. We found that the SPS had made reasonable arrangements to provide halal food in the prison, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201304894 as a PDF (11.39 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the process the prison applied at his disciplinary hearing (a process that looks at whether a prisoner has broken prison rules, and if so, what punishment to award). Our role in looking at this type of complaint is to consider whether the prison followed the correct process before deciding whether the prisoner was guilty of breaking the rules. We are not a further route for prisoners to appeal against that decision and we cannot overturn it. Mr C complained that the adjudicator of the hearing refused to call witnesses he had identified or to view CCTV footage. Mr C said prison rules said that before finding a prisoner guilty of breaking prison rules, the adjudicator should be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. Because the adjudicator refused to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage, Mr C questioned how the adjudicator could have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of breaking the rules. The rules confirm that at the disciplinary hearing, a prisoner may request that a witness be called. This request must be granted where the adjudicator is reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give will be relevant to deciding on the charge. The supporting guidance also says that the adjudicator is responsible for assessing the truth of each statement given in evidence at the hearing and for deciding whether the prisoner is guilty of breaking the rules. In Mr C's case, the adjudicator confirmed that he would call witnesses if he felt it was appropriate to do so. However, after hearing the statement from the officer who witnessed Mr C breaking the rules, the adjudicator confirmed that he did not need to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage. We found that the adjudicator had the discretion to refuse to call Mr C's witnesses or to view the CCTV footage, and he was also responsible for assessing the truth of the various statements. We considered that the process applied at Mr C's di

Mr C complained that the prison failed to review his supervision level appropriately. He said that when he was recalled to prison for a driving offence, he should have been assigned low supervision. He also questioned why the decision of residential staff to assign him low supervision at his review six months later was overruled by a senior manager who decided Mr C should remain at medium supervision level. We reviewed Mr C's supervision level review forms and noted that, when he arrived back in prison, he was assigned high supervision level in line with prison rules which confirm that all prisoners, on reception, must be assigned this. An immediate review took place and Mr C's supervision was reduced to medium. There was no evidence to support his claim that he should have been assigned low supervision because he was recalled for a driving offence. The evidence confirmed that because he had a number of poor behavioural reports over the years whilst in prison, medium supervision was considered to be the appropriate level. In Mr C's review six months after he was recalled to prison, the information confirmed that residential staff had indicated that he could be assigned low supervision. However, when the form was passed to the review board, they did not agree and said that Mr C's supervision level should be maintained at medium because he had recently received poor reports. We were satisfied the prison's handling of Mr C's reviews were appropriate and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403211 as a PDF (11.25 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s decision to refuse his application for release on home detention curfew (HDC) because the immigration department were considering deporting him at the end of his sentence. We found that prisoners can only be statutorily excluded from release on HDC when they have been formally notified of a decision to deport them, and when Mr C's application was refused, no formal decision had yet been taken on his case. Following this refusal, the SPS issued guidance to staff clarifying how to interpret the relevant legislation. This guidance was issued before Mr C appealed the decision on his case but, despite this, the SPS did not identify that they had previously interpreted the legislation incorrectly. The appeal was rejected but the SPS later realised that this should not have happened and reopened the case. They then contacted the immigration department for an update and found out that there were no plans to issue a formal decision until nearer the end of Mr C's custodial sentence. However, as the SPS had highlighted the importance of receiving a formal decision for HDC purposes, one was issued, which allowed the SPS to properly determine Mr C's application. As updated staff guidance had already been issued, and Mr C's case had been reopened and assessed appropriately, all that was left in this particular case was for us to ask the SPS to apologise to Mr C. However, we were concerned that receipt of a formal deportation order is crucial in terms of processing HDC applications, and the immigration department do not routinely issue the orders until late in the prison sentence. We, therefore, made a recommendation about this.

Mr C complained because he had concerns about the safety of the area that he and other prisoners worked in and he did not think the prison had addressed these properly. He also complained that he was not being paid weekly, and because he felt that the prison had not considered his circumstances appropriately when allocating work to him. In his complaint to the prison, Mr C said he had not received appropriate inductions and he made a number of observations about the work being carried out. He also raised concerns about an incident that had taken in place in which another prisoner was injured. In response, the prison confirmed that all reported accidents were fully investigated and records kept. They told Mr C that he was required to work. We considered that the prison appropriately addressed his concerns about the incident involving the other prisoner. We also considered that it was unreasonable for Mr C to complain about not receiving the appropriate inductions, because he had refused to attend work. However, the prison did not respond at all to his observations of the work being carried out and we felt they should have, so we upheld this aspect of his complaint and made a recommendation. Prison rules require prisoners to work. However, Mr C had made it clear to the prison that he was not prepared to attend work. The prison provided evidence to show us the steps they had taken to consider Mr C's circumstances before allocating work to him and we found these to have been appropriate. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaints about this.

Mr C sent a wash bag to the prison laundry but did not receive it back. He said it appeared that his laundry bag had been stolen and he submitted a compensation claim. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) rejected Mr C's claim and said that any property held in use by a prisoner was entirely at his or her own risk, as stated on their property card. Mr C complained to us that the SPS's decision-making in respect of his claim was unreasonable. It was clear from the evidence obtained that the only means by which Mr C was able to have his clothes washed in the prison was to use their laundry service. From the point at which he placed his belongings in his laundry bag and they were removed from his possession, along with his completed laundry sheet, he could not reasonably be expected to be responsible for their return. The prison provided the laundry service and were, therefore, responsible for returning Mr C's belongings to him. We took the view that it was unreasonable for the prison to rely on the disclaimer on Mr C's property card to absolve themselves of any responsibility for returning his belongings to him. We found that the SPS did not have a system in place to adequately track prisoners' laundry, failed to fully investigate Mr C's claim and reach a conclusion on what happened to his laundry bag and failed to take responsibility for his laundry by applying the property card disclaimer. We concluded that their decision-making in respect of Mr C's claim for lost laundry was unreasonable.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to clarify his circumstances in relation to his fitness to work and was reported for not working. He was also concerned about the handling of his representations about this. During our investigation the SPS provided evidence that Mr C had seen a prison doctor, who had deemed him fit to work, although not with machinery, before he was reported for not working. The prison doctor had also considered the risk assessments for the workshed Mr C was allocated to and deemed it to be suitable. While we were satisfied that in general the SPS had dealt with Mr C's complaints in line with the complaints process, we were concerned that when Mr C had asked for assistance at a number of internal complaints committee (ICC) hearings, this was not always acknowledged on the paperwork. We also noted that three committee members were not always present at the ICC as required. During our investigation the SPS reminded staff of the need to follow the correct procedures in relation to providing the relevant paperwork to a prisoner. They also agreed to remind staff of the need to follow the process when a prisoner requires assistance at a ICC. We, therefore, made only one recommendation.

Mr C complained that his prison did not allow him to use his personal bedding while in the separation and reintegration unit, a separate part of the prison. We considered what Mr C told us, as well as comments from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). In addition, we looked at The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2006. We found that the prison were required to provide Mr C with bedding, which they did. We also found that the system of privileges in prison can be different for prisoners detained in specific parts of the prison, and that the prison had discretion to decide that a prisoner may or may not have certain items in use when in that unit. Mr C did not like the prison-issue bedding but that, in itself, was not evidence of a failure on the part of the prison. We were satisfied that the prison reached a decision they were entitled to take, in line with the rules, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we were concerned about an argument put forward by the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) in not upholding Mr C's complaint. We were not convinced that, in terms of the prison rules, there was a distinction between storage of property in a prisoner's cell, and items in use, and so we made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C complained that he cannot attend Friday prayers in prison. The prison explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s Islamic chaplaincy adviser had advised that prisons did not need to hold prayers on Fridays and that the same applied to other religions because they did not follow traditional service days. We found that the prison rules say that every prisoner is entitled to observe the requirements and engage in the practices of their religion or belief. They also say prisoners are entitled to attend religious services or meetings arranged by members of the chaplaincy team. In addition, prison governors are required to tell prisoners what facilities or arrangements are in place for the purpose of practising their religion. The SPS told us that their Islamic chaplaincy adviser confirmed that providing prayers on a day of the week which is suitable to the prison was appropriate. The adviser confirmed there was no requirement to provide prayers on Fridays, and that whilst in prison, whenever prayers take place they are considered as a benefit. The SPS confirmed that, for example, in the prison Mr C was located, Muslim prayers were held on Mondays and Roman Catholic Mass was held on Mondays for some prisoners, and Wednesdays for others. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201403048 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was pursuing a full-time education programme in prison and complained when it was stopped. He said he had had serious literacy difficulties but that the education provision had helped him hugely and he wanted to access more education opportunities. We established that the prison had provided far more education for Mr C than prisoners usually receive. This was largely because of his literacy difficulties and the difficulty he had in obtaining work in the prison. The prison agreed with him that he had done very well and had achieved a number of accredited qualifications but said the time had come for him to transfer some of what he had learnt into work activity, which they wanted to arrange for him in the prison. They also said that they needed to use some of their resources to help other prisoners with greater needs, but that they were still providing six hours of education a week for Mr C and would continue to try to meet his wishes. We considered that they had acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402914 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the governor at his prison did not investigate his confidential complaint, which included an allegation Mr C made about the actions of a member of prison staff. Prisoners can make complaints about routine matters. They can also make complaints about exceptionally sensitive or serious matters, which are treated as confidential complaints that go directly to the prison governor. We found there was no guidance for governors on what matters could be considered exceptionally sensitive or serious and thus appropriate to be dealt with under the confidential process. There was also a lack of clarity about which process should be used to deal with prisoners' allegations against prison staff. We found that the governor failed to provide Mr C with reasons for deciding that his complaint was not about a confidential matter; and that the prison did not keep a proper record of his confidential complaint, as they were supposed to. We took the view that an allegation made by a prisoner about a member of staff would appear to be a matter of serious concern for a governor, even if such an allegation later proved to be unfounded. In addition, we did not think it was reasonable for a member of staff's peers to investigate, consider the evidence, and reach a conclusion about an allegation against that member of staff. We decided that the governor should have either given Mr C reasons for not investigating his complaint, or should have investigated it. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C was told he did not need to do any more courses while in prison and in due course he was released. He was later recalled to prison and was then told that he did need to do more coursework. He complained that this was inappropriate. During our consideration of Mr C's complaint, the SPS resolved the matter for him and he decided to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, we took no further action on it. Related reading View Decision Report 201400501 as a PDF (10.76 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately refused to provide him access to the library. Mr C was an untried prisoner located within an area of the prison that was for those requiring protection. The prison rules confirm that prisons should make arrangements to allow prisoners to access library services, but also that privileges – including library access - can vary for different categories of prisoners, and for those detained in certain parts of the prison. The Scottish Prison Service told us that the council provided the main library service but that this facility did not extend to untried prisoners. Instead, untried prisoners could access an in-hall library. However, in the particular hall that Mr C was in, there were operational difficulties in granting him access to the in-hall library. He was unable to access either that or the main library (as he was an untried prisoner), which is why he complained. We noted that the prison's internal complaints committee had considered Mr C's complaint, and recommended that steps be taken to enable him to access a library service which the governor had accepted. In light of the evidence available, we were satisfied the prison had the authority to restrict access to the main prison library for some prisoner groups. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about restricted access. However, we did uphold his complaint about complaints handling. We found that the response to his complaint should have more clearly outlined the prison rules and the reasons why Mr C did not have the same access to the main library as other prisoners.