Appendix B - Dip Sampling of Police Scotland Complaints - Q2 2025-26

Introduction

The information and evidence collected during the exercise was assessed
against the Police Scotland Complaints about the Police Standing Operating Procedure (CAPSOP) and the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) Statutory Guidance on the handling of complaints
about the police in Scotland.

Sample Size

This report covers complaints closed by Police Scotland during Q2 2025/26. A random selection of 62 (approx. 5% of 1240 total complaints) were selected for review (comprising West (21), East (21) and North (20)
Command Areas).

Complaint Closure Type

Of those cases reviewed during this exercise, the following Complaint
Closure Types were identified:

Frontline Resolution

Early Resolution
Complaints resolved by Divisional supervisors

PSD (National Complaints Assessment & Resolution Unit)
Complaints received and resolved by the Unit (following assessment of suitability for FLR)

PSD (Non-Criminal Investigations) or Specialist Division
Complaints resolved via FLR following allocation for investigation (subject to assessment of suitability for FLR)

Non-Criminal

Complaints where no criminal allegations included, where:
FLR has not been achieved; or

FLR is not considered to be appropriate where the complaint is considered to be serious or complex in nature
(i.e. of a nature which may later justify proceedings for misconduct or which allege serious failures in policing
services)

Criminal 

Complaints where reasonable inference a crime may have been committed

Abandoned

Complaints closed where complainer cannot be contacted & does not respond to a request to make contact within 14
calendar days

If the complainer subsequently makes contact the original complaint will be re-opened.

Withdrawn

Complaints withdrawn by the complainer at the initial NCARU assessment stage. Complainer advised to contact PSD should they reconsider.

Written statement required from complainer where request to withdraw following allocation for investigation. Criminal complaints may continue to be investigated.

Not a Relevant Complaint

In terms of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 [as amended by the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012]

The chart below sets out the breakdown of complaints included in the sample.
Appendix I details the breakdown of all complaints received in the quarter, and provides comparison to those in earlier dip-sample exercises.

Key Findings 

Front Line Resolution - Early Resolution

1 (of a total 2 complaints) was reviewed:
• Closure time – 2 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

Front Line Resolution - PSD (National Complaints Assessment & Resolution Unit)

30 (of a total 660 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average closure time – 15 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

No equality and diversity information was captured in case handling forms (CHF) in 37% of files reviewed. Police Scotland have previously advised that this information is only captured if the complainer agrees to share the information. However, no evidence was recorded that this question was requested and declined.

In 10% of the files reviewed there was no confirmation that the subject officer or local area command had been notified of the complaint and outcome.

There was little recorded evidence on CHFs that NCARU staff are advising complainers that they can revert to Police Scotland should they change their mind (i.e. reconsider that their complaint has been satisfactorily resolved via FLR).

Front Line Resolution - PSD (Non-Criminal Investigations) or Specialist Division

3 (of a total 56 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average time to allocate – 171 working days from receipt of complaint
• Average closure time – 200 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

From review of the sample, there is inconsistency in regard to the version of the CHF used to record the handling of the complaints, resulting in inconsistency of information recorded.

In one case involving referral to the PIRC due to allegations of assault, the CHF makes no reference in this regard, instead stating that the complaint was withdrawn (and it then being recorded on Centurion as having been closed via FLR). There is no evidence that the subject officers have been made aware of the PIRC referral.

Another complaint appears to have taken 330 days to allocate, before than being closed via FLR on the day of allocation despite no recorded contact with the complainer.

Non-Criminal

9 (of a total 171 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average time to allocate – 186 working days from receipt of
complaint
• Average closure time – 517 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

• One case, initially resolved by FLR, was rejected a year later by the complainer. The case was reopened and then subsequently concluded. The complainer is this instance is recorded as having a
history of acting in this manner.

• This area of PSD business should be viewed in the context of the current queue of complaints awaiting allocation for investigation and formal determination (noting that closure timescales for the above
case were below that of the sample average).

Criminal 

2 (of a total 24 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average closure time – 690 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

• It should be noted that timescales for criminal complaints, following referral to PIRC/COPFS, can be significant and are outwith the control of Police Scotland until they are returned to them for
closure.

• In one case, BWV was reviewed showing no evidence of the alleged criminal allegations made against the subject officers, and allowing the case to be closed within 9 days.

• In the other case, following referral to COPFS, time under investigation amounted to 1,372 days, following which the complainer was advised that the case had been marked ‘No Proceedings’. However, no information was recorded to explain why the case had taken so long to conclude.

Abandoned

11 (of a total 230 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average time to establish abandonment – 186 working days from receipt of complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

• Direct comparison is not available for earlier dip-sample exercises, which separately examined receipt to allocation, and allocation to abandonment as follows:

Whilst complaints are received and assessed at NCARU, where they require investigation they are sent to PSD Investigations and then allocated. From the 11 files reviewed, 6 were sent to Investigations, with the average time before being allocated to an investigator being 185 days. The delay between them arriving and being
allocated is likely a major factor in their resulting abandonment.

In one case, a complaint was treated as abandoned on the advice of a local divisional supervisor who reported having been presented with a hostile attitude having attended at the complainer’s address.
The initial allegation of assault was subsequently changed to excessive force to allow it to be abandoned. No letter was sent to the complainer, and there doesn’t appear to have been any PSD involvement in the case.

One complaint was treated as abandoned, despite the Investigations team having only had it for 6 days. No letter was sent advising the abandonment nor allowing the complainer any further opportunity to provide details.

Withdrawn

5 (of a total 93 complaints) were reviewed:
• Average time to withdrawal – 95 working days from receipt of
complaint
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

Direct comparison is not available for earlier dip-sample exercises,
which instead examined receipt to allocation as follows:

In the cases audited, the timescales for closure through withdrawal ranged from 2 days to 333 days.

Timescales are influenced by the time delay in complaints being received by NCARU and their ultimate allocation for FLR or investigation.

Not a Relevant Complaint

• 1 (of a total 2 cases) were reviewed, which was assessed as having been handled appropriately.
• This compares to earlier dip-sample exercises as follows:

Key Findings

• The PIRC Statutory Guidance provides an expectation that policing bodies should respond to non-criminal complaints requiring investigation within 56 days (40 working days) of receipt. The aim of frontline resolution (FLR) is to provide a quick, informed response within a much shorter timescale.

• Findings from this dip-sampling exercise are consistent with those of earlier exercises, demonstrating that, where cases are concluded by FLR at Division or via PSD (NCARU), this is consistently achieved within
a very short timeframe, although where FLR is achieved via PSD (Non- Criminal Investigations) or Specialist Division, this continues to take in excess of 40 working days. In respect of those cases requiring formal
investigation and determination, however, closure timescales continue to significantly exceed 40 working days, it being recognised that these are impacted by initial delays in allocation.

• As with previous dip-sampling exercises, timescales are assessed as being a key contributing factor in cases subsequently abandoned. However, as with the Q4 2024/25 sample, this exercise identified instances where reasonable efforts did not appear to have been made to secure the complainer’s cooperation before the case was abandoned.

• As was identified in each of the earlier samples, there continue to be issues surrounding effective record-keeping practice. Of particular note, on this occasion there was an absence of evidence across all cases of supervisory sign-off of completed Complaint Handling Forms.

• With the exception of the above points, all cases have otherwise been deemed to have been handled appropriately in terms of the CAPSOP (and, in turn, the PIRC Statutory Guidance).

Recommendations

As identified from earlier samples (and the findings of the SPA/PIRC Joint Audit of Police Scotland’s initial triage of complaints and PIRC Audit Report on the Six-Stage Complaint Handling Process), Police Scotland should continue to:

Monitor timescales following the initial assessment of the complaint and contact with the complainer

Monitor record keeping to ensure consistent practice in line with accepted standards