Monday 19 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision report 201201458

  • Case ref:
    201201458
  • Date:
    December 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    earnings

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to reduce his wage banding (prisoners' work output is assessed against three performance standards). Mr C said he produced good quality work and he felt he should be on the higher banding. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that his wage had been reduced because of the quality of his work, and said that staff were entitled to move prisoners within the performance bandings. In response to our investigation, the prison explained that prisoners could be promoted or demoted depending on their work standards, behaviour, attendance etc. The prison confirmed that this also acted as a motivational tool for prisoners. They said that Mr C had been demoted because they felt the quality of his work could be improved. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied the prison had made their decision appropriately, after considering the relevant information.

Mr C also complained that the internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider his complaint appropriately. He said the ICC did not meet with him to discuss his complaint. We found, however, that the ICC tried twice to meet with Mr C to discuss his complaint, but Mr C chose not to meet them because he was at work. Because of this, they discussed Mr C's complaint in his absence. In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the ICC considered Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Updated: March 13, 2018