Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following officers attending at the applicant’s home address to speak with him in response to allegations made against him by two teenage girls. We have reviewed the handling of seven complaints, namely that: 

1. An officer accused the applicant of stalking two teenage girls.  
2. An officer accused the applicant of getting information from his daughter’s social media without providing an explanation of why he believed this or having any evidence of this.
3. An officer threatened that he would put the applicant in handcuffs and place him in a cell if he went near the two teenage girls. 
4. An officer failed to properly explain to the applicant what the complaint was about.
5. An officer gave the applicant a warning, but did not provide him with any reference number. 
6. When the applicant asked if he could go to a named trampoline park, the officer told him that he was not allowed to go there. 
7. An officer put his foot on the applicant’s door.

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 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 1 and 2. We have also highlighted a shortcoming in Police Scotland’s administration of the applicant’s complaints.

Consequently, we have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have asked Police Scotland to reconsider the information available, conduct further enquiry and provide the applicant with a further response. We have also recommended that Police Scotland reassess the categorisation of the applicant’s complaints and the identification of the officer(s) subject of them. 

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

Outcome

Police Scotland implemented all three recommendations made in this case. In doing so, further enquiries were carried out, the complaints were reassessed in light of the observations made in our report, and a well-reasoned further response was sent to the applicant. The further response included sufficient information to explain why the complaints remained ‘not upheld’. Police Scotland also implemented our administrative recommendation by recording the subject officers for each complaint and recatogarised each of the applicant’s complaints in line with their complaint handling procedures. 

Police Bodies: Police Scotland