Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews
Index 1. Role of the PIRC 2. Key findings 3. Background 4. The Review 5. Conclusions Page 1
1. Role of the PIRC Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 ( the Act ) provide that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ( the PIRC ) may examine the manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Through agreements with UK police bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC may also examine the manner in which these bodies deal with complaints. The PIRC cannot review complaints of criminal behaviour against police officers or police staff, or complaints made by persons serving, or who have served with the police, about the terms and conditions of their service. In performing this review function, the PIRC obtains information from the police body which dealt with the complaint. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who made the complaint ( the applicant ). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors taken into account when making this assessment are the following: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is supported by all material information available; whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is adequately reasoned; and where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented. 2. Key findings The complaints in this case arose from police officers forcing entry to one of the applicant s properties. Three complaints were considered, namely: 1. that Police Scotland did not provide a sufficient rationale for the requirement to force entry; 2. that Police Scotland failed to identify the correct address for the property; and 3. that Police Scotland did not carry out sufficient checks to identify the applicant as the owner of the property, which may have negated the requirement to force entry. The review found that all three complaints were handled to a reasonable standard. No further action was recommended. Page 2
3. Background On 20 August 2016, Police Scotland s Service Centre received a concern call from a member of the public advising that an alarm was sounding from within a neighbouring flat and they believed this to be a carbon monoxide alarm. Checks of police systems established that two calls of a similar nature had been received from other neighbours within the past 24 hours. Constables A and B were dispatched to the address and identified the correct property by following the sound of the alarm. The officers arrived at the property at 2005hrs. Door to door checks with neighbours confirmed that the occupant had not been seen for approximately two days and the alarm had been sounding for approximately eighteen hours. When opening the letterbox to check for occupancy, officers also noted a rotting smell coming from within the flat. At 2015hrs, the officers requested authorisation from Sergeant C to force entry, and they gained entry with the assistance of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service at 2030hrs. Once inside, Constables A and B discovered that no one was present and that the alarm sound was coming from a carbon monoxide detector which required new batteries. The source of the smell was identified as a bag of rotting food. A contractor was subsequently employed by the police to re-secure the property. An invoice for the contracting work to secure the property was sent to the applicant as the landlord. In September 2016, the applicant contacted Police Scotland querying why he was liable for the cost of the property being re-secured. He received a response from Police Scotland dated 22 November 2016 which explained that entry had been forced due to a medical emergency or to protect life and thus the liability for the costs lay with the owner/occupier. The applicant disputed this response and a further letter was sent to him in January 2017 by Superintendent D, reiterating the previously stated position. On 25 January 2017, the applicant submitted a formal letter of complaint concerning the circumstances of the forced entry. Enquiries were made by Inspector E, who agreed with the applicant the substance of the complaints to be investigated. A letter dated 11 May 2017 responding to the applicant s complaints was issued by Superintendent D. 4. The Review Complaint 1: Rationale not explained The applicant complained that he did not believe that the forced entry to the flat was necessary or justified as it had not been explained to him what changed in 18 hours which changed the call from a beeping alarm into a need to force entry to protect life. He requested that the circumstances be reassessed and that he be provided with an explanation of Police Scotland s rationale. Police Handling of Complaint 1 In his letter dated 11 May 2017 responding to the applicant s complaints, Superintendent D wrote: Page 3
Around 1815 hours on 20 th August 2016 officers were instructed to attend your property after an informant had telephoned the police expressing their concern for the welfare of the occupier. Officers attended and identified the correct flat, with an audible alarm sounding within. The informant had also expressed a concern that the alarm may relate to a carbon monoxide alarm. Officers knocked loudly and repeatedly but received no reply. They carried out door to door enquiries and spoke with neighbours on the first floor and also the ground floor, none of whom could identify or name the occupier of the address, or the owner and none were in possession of spare keys to the property. When looking through the letterbox of the property the attending officers could smell a bad smell, consistent with smells they had experienced at other calls where someone was either seriously ill/injured or deceased. The above circumstances were discussed between the attending officers and their sergeant and authority was given to force entry to the property In respect of the difference in circumstances between the third call and the first two calls to the Service Centre, Superintendent D wrote: Neighbours within the common stair at [the property address], contacted police around 0015 hours on 20 th August 2016 reporting a fire alarm battery beeping. Police Scotland protocol currently only dispatches officers to alarms controlled by alarm companies, or those with confirmatory technology (e.g. where sensors confirm unauthorised movement within a building), or where there are other elements of note or concern. As the information for this call was merely a beeping noise, officers were not dispatched and the incident was closed. Around 1300 hours later the same day, a different neighbour again reported to police an audible alarm beeping. As per the above protocol, as there was no accompanying ancillary information giving rise to any concern, officers were not dispatched and the incident was closed off. Around 1800 hours, same day, a third separate neighbour telephoned Police Scotland regarding this alarm within the flat you own. The difference in this call was that the informant reported concern for the wellbeing of the occupier and that the noise may be a carbon monoxide detector warning alarm. Given these two extra elements, officers were dispatched, they attended and located the correct property and could smell a concerning smell, thus giving rise to more concerns, thus justifying their next actions of door to door enquiries, discussing the call with their sergeant and arranging for entry to be forced. In not upholding the complaint, Superintendent D concluded that the actions of the attending officers were commensurate with their training and experience, in line with expected practice and that their decision making was appropriate. Page 4
Consideration of Complaint 1 Police Scotland s standard operating procedure in relation to Forced Entry and Insecure Premises (the Forced Entry SOP ) provides at paragraph 1.4 that, when considering whether or not it is necessary to force entry to premises, the overriding factor should always be the protection of life and property (emphasis in original). Paragraphs 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 of the Forced Entry SOP further provide that (emphases in original): Where there appears to be an immediate threat to the occupant or property and any delay in accessing the property may be detrimental to the health of the occupant, or any other person an officer should force entry to the property Where there is an ongoing threat to the occupant or any property and a short delay would not be detrimental to the health of the occupant, the officer attending should first consider: Telephoning the locus or key holder, if a telephone number is known, and Carrying out brief door to door enquiries to ascertain if a neighbour holds or knows the location of a key to the property If these courses of action are unsuccessful, the officer should then consider: Forcing entry to the property, following consultation with supervisor The officers accounts of the circumstances were accurately reflected in Superintendent D s response to the applicant. After identifying the correct property, officers conducted brief enquiries then made a decision that forced entry was required. The circumstances that the officers perceived were: that the property showed clear signs of recent occupation; that the occupant had not been seen by her neighbours for around two days; that an alarm had been sounding within the property for more than eighteen hours and there was concern this was a carbon monoxide alarm; that the curtains visible from the rear of the property were drawn over; and, in particular, that there was a rotting smell apparent when officers opened the letterbox. The officers stated that they therefore believed that the occupant of the property may be dead or dying within. Taking these factors and the provisions of the Forced Entry SOP into consideration, Superintendent D s conclusion that the officers actions were correct was justified. Furthermore, Superintendent D explained the difference in circumstance between the two initial calls and the third call which led to the officers attendance and explained the procedures that were followed in dealing with the initial calls. It is evident from the information provided that the factors leading to the officers decision to force entry only became apparent to them after they had arrived at the building, and this has been clearly articulated by Superintendent D. It would have been beneficial for Inspector E during his enquiry into the applicant s complaints to have obtained a statement from Sergeant C, who authorised the forced entry. Notwithstanding, a statement Page 5
was eventually obtained from Sergeant C in September 2017, and the rationale he provided for his decision was in line with the accounts given by the officers and the view of Superintendent D. On the basis of the foregoing, it is concluded that this complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required of Police Scotland in this connection. Complaint 2: Wrong address identified In a statement dated 9 April 2017, the applicant complained that Police Scotland failed to identify the correct flat number of the property. The applicant contended that, had Police Scotland noted the correct property address, the appropriate checks would have identified him as the owner and hence a key holder, negating the requirement for entry to be forced and thus also the cost to him. Police Handling of Complaint 2 In his letter dated 11 May 2017 responding to the applicant s complaints, Superintendent D wrote: [Inspector E] who noted your statement of complaint attended at [the property address] on the day [he] met with you. [He] walked all floors within the common stairwell in question and observed an unusual numbering pattern within. There are at least two, possibly three identifying conventions at work within this common stair and indeed the ground floor has a different system from the first floor, which is again, highly unusual. All three of the persons reporting this matter to the police referred to the address in question as 1F2, the buzzer on the external entry system which relates to the flat in question is 1F4 and the number on the flat door itself has a large 6 on it. However, when officers attended, they identified the correct address by following the noise of the audible alarm and speaking to neighbours during their door to door enquiries. This appears to be an administrative error on our part relating to the initial recording of the incident on our system. However at no point was the identification of the correct flat in any doubt, the audible alarm clearly identified it as the correct address. Given the somewhat unique numbering within the stair and three separate reports of the alarm sounding at 1F2, I can see why the incident was initially recorded as relating to 1F2. However, your input has clarified the correct address and I will ensure that all future correspondences correctly refer to 1F4 or Flat 6. I UPHOLD this element of your complaint, and apologise for our initial incorrect identification of your Flat as 1F2. I do note, however, that had we identified and referred to the flat as 1F4 (aka Flat 6) from the very first call, no part of this incident would have had a different outcome. Page 6
Consideration of Complaint 2 As identified by Superintendent D in his response to the applicant, all three callers who reported the incident prior to police attendance identified the flat as Flat 1F2. This is confirmed on the three relevant incident reports created following the calls. However, in one of the first calls, the caller also referred to the flat as being numbered Flat 6. It is therefore possible that, had checks been done using this information at that stage, the applicant s details as the landlord of the property could have been identified. Nonetheless, as explained by Superintendent D in his letter of response, the details given by the caller at that stage did not require any action to be taken to trace the occupant or registered owner of the property. It was only following the third call that the situation became urgent as a result of the additional information available, i.e. the length of time since anyone had seen the occupant of the flat and the concerning smell emanating from the letterbox. In this respect, Superintendent D has clearly explained that had we identified and referred to the flat as 1F4 (aka Flat 6) from the very first call, no part of this incident would have had a different outcome. On the basis of the information available, this is a fair assessment. Notwithstanding, the applicant s complaint was upheld by Superintendent D on the basis that the wrong flat number was provided by Police Scotland to the company who repaired the door, as this occurred after the point when the correct address of the property appears to have been identified by the police officers. This is an example of good complaint handling. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that this complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required of Police Scotland in this connection. Complaint 3: Checks not conducted The applicant complained that Police Scotland had missed a number of opportunities to correctly identify him as the owner and instead took unnecessary action to force entry to the property. He contended that the cost he was now liable to pay could have been avoided had Police Scotland identified the correct address and made simple checks on their systems. In a letter to Police Scotland dated 25 January 2017, the applicant queried whether the landlord registration website had been checked to try to identify the owner of the property prior to entry being forced. He contended that, if the police had indeed searched this website to identify a keyholder, then they must have used the wrong address despite the correct address being apparent to the officers who attended the call. Police Handling of Complaint 3 In his letter dated 11 May 2017 responding to the applicant s complaints, Superintendent D wrote: Page 7
If time had not been of the essence, the town joiner service could have been utilised, however, as the entry was forced in order to potentially protect and preserve life, the Fire Service were contacted, who attended under blue light conditions and entry was forced. Given the urgency of the situation, and that officers had already carried out door to door enquiry, extensive systems checks to search for a property owner, who may or may not have been in a position to attend and open the door with a true key, would not have been reasonable or proportionate in the potential life saving circumstances. As an aside, [Inspector E] interrogated the police call handling system, STORM and found no previous calls to [the property address] from which the control room staff could have potentially gained your name or contact details. He also interrogated the precursor call handling system legacy-storm which lists historic incidents. Likewise there are no previous calls listed to [the property address] on this system. Police Scotland does not hold a database of property keyholders. Historically there was such a list but its use was discontinued several years ago as it was frequently out of date and inaccurate. [Inspector E] also interrogated the Landlord Registration website and found you as the owner, listed at [other property address] which is a different address from your home address where [Inspector E] met you and noted you complaint, and there is no phone number listed. So sending a police car to the [other property address] would have been time consuming and unlikely to yield an immediate keyholder. A search of the Police Scotland Quick Address system shows no names or contact details listed for [the property address]. CDA (an advanced version of the Voters Roll system) likewise does not list your name or contact details at [the property address]. UNIFY, the Police Crime and Vehicle Crash Recording system has one record at your address, dated 2006, and it does not relate to you. As the call was being treated by the attending officers as urgent, needing immediate action for the purposes of preserving and protecting life, as they are legislatively mandated to do within the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, their actions were proportionate and correct. In addition, as evidenced by [Inspector E] s investigations, checks on police systems would not have readily shown you as a contact relating to this address. Accordingly, this element of your complaint is NOT UPHELD. Consideration of Complaint 3 Constables A and B stated that, whilst on their way to the call, they checked other police systems with the address they had been given by the Service Centre, i.e. Flat 1F2. The police incident record supports that this was the address provided by the neighbour who made the call. Therefore, at the time Page 8
the systems were checked, the officers had no reason to believe that Flat 1F2 was not the correct address. The officers acknowledged that, when they arrived at the property, they identified that the address provided was incorrect and identified the correct property from the noise of the alarm. However, their observations of the property (as detailed in Complaint 1) led them to believe there may be someone dead or dying within. Any considerations they may otherwise have given to tracing an owner or keyholder using the correct property address at that time were hence superseded by an immediate need to enter the property. The landlord registration system referred to by the applicant does have the applicant listed as the owner of the property, but it also displays a different address from the applicant s home address and no telephone number. Police Scotland acknowledged that the wrong address was used to check systems prior to forcing entry. However, as identified by Superintendent D, even if they had used the correct address and checked the landlord registration website, this would not necessarily have allowed them to identify a keyholder who could attend the property within the timescale necessitated by the urgency of the situation. When investigating the applicant s complaint Inspector E made checks of the relevant systems, including the landlord registration website. While Inspector E notes in his complaint record that it is not routine for the landlord registration website to be checked for owner details in such circumstances, he also requests that consideration be given to incorporating this as standard practice. Identifying potential learning, even where the applicant s complaint is not upheld, demonstrates good complaint handling. For the reasons given above, Superintendent D s conclusion was justified on the basis of the material information available. It is therefore concluded that this complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required of Police Scotland in this connection. 5. Conclusions Complaints 1 to 3 It is concluded that all three complaints in this case were handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. Jennifer Millar Review Officer Peter Innes Senior Review Officer Page 9