Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant being struck by a police car whilst riding his moped on a public road. Both vehicles were travelling southbound on the same multi-lane carriageway when an officer manoeuvred her police car into the lane occupied by the applicant, colliding with his moped, which caused him to fall off his vehicle. The officer was not charged with a driving offence, however, Police Scotland accepted responsibility for the cost of damage to the applicant’s moped.

We have reviewed the handling of seven complaints, namely that: 

1. the officer driving the vehicle at the time of the collision was not breathalysed;
2. the officer who administered the breath test to the applicant used incorrect wording in doing so, telling him that he suspected the applicant had been drinking;
3. an officer noted the applicant’s statement in relation to the collision, despite being a witness to it;
4. an officer altered the words used by the applicant when noting his statement in relation to the collision;
5. the driver and passenger of the police vehicle changed seats, possibly to confuse the applicant;
6. officers did not follow correct procedure when there had been an injury caused to the applicant after being hit by a police car; and
7. officers failed to stop any passing motorists or obtain any details of potential witnesses following the collision. 

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, 4, 5 and 6 to a reasonable standard, but not so complaints 2, 3, and 7. We have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland conducts additional enquiries and provides the applicant with a further response. 

Our recommendations should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Outcome

Police Scotland implemented three recommendations in this case. In doing so, Police Scotland conducted additional enquiries and reassessed two complaints in line with our recommendations. Thereafter, the applicant was provided with a further response in which the two reassessed complaints were upheld, and which clearly explained the rationale behind the determinations. Lastly, learning was cascaded to the subject officers regarding the shortcomings that we identified in our CHR and the further enquiries conducted by Police Scotland.

Policing Bodies: Police Scotland