Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was issued with a Recorded Police Warning.  We have reviewed the handling of five complaints, namely that:

1. an officer was not impartial and had a conflict of interest;
2. the same officer issued the applicant with a Recorded Police Warning (RPW), but did not explain the full implications of the RPW or the alternatives;
3. the same officer A was heavy handed in his approach, which resulted in the applicant accepting the RPW;
   the same officer informed the applicant that he would ask for details of the incident to be excluded from a police report to the community council, however the report included details of the incident and was sent within the appeal period he had to challenge the RPW; and
4. after being told that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case, the officer issued the applicant with a RPW. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the applicant’s complaints.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1, 2 and 3 of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 4 and 5.

We have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints.

Outcome

Police Scotland implemented the recommendations made in this case. In doing so, they undertook proportionate further enquiries, re-assessed two complaints in light of our observations and issued the applicant with a further response. While one of these complaints remained not upheld, the further response provided the applicant with a detailed rationale for the determination. The other complaint was upheld and the applicant was also provided with a detailed explanation and apology in this regard. 

Police Bodies : Police Scotland