Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following reporting his neighbours’ behaviour to the police. The applicant provided the police with CCTV footage captured from his home address and a detailed breakdown of his neighbours’ movements to evidence these allegations. The applicant was charged with engaging in a course of conduct towards his neighbours contrary to Section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licencing (Scotland) Act 2010 (commonly referred to as ‘stalking’). The charge was marked for ‘no further criminal proceedings’ by the Procurator Fiscal.

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

1. Officers refused to note the applicant’s counter complaint;
2. CCTV footage and a statement the applicant provided when reporting an incident to the police was used against him by officers without him being cautioned or informed that there was an issue with the CCTV footage; 
3. An officer did not warn the applicant in respect of his CCTV system, coverage or usage;
4. An Inspector contacted the applicant by telephone to introduce himself and was uncivil during the conversation, making comments to suggest that he had pre-judged the applicant’s complaints before any enquiry had been carried out; 
5. The Standard Prosecution Report (SPR) submitted against the applicant was false, misleading and inaccurate; 
6. Officers breached ‘sub judice’ rules when investigating and reporting the allegations of harassment involving the applicant and his neighbours; and
7. Officers who investigated the applicant’s complaints worked in the same division and knew officers involved in his complaints, which he considers a conflict of interest. 

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, 3 and 7 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 2, 4, 5 and 6. 

Consequently, we made four recommendations and identified a learning point to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland reassess complaint 4, and conduct further enquiry into complaints 2, 5 and 6. Police Scotland should thereafter provide the applicant with a further well-reasoned response to each of the complaints.

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

Police Bodies: Police Scotland