Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained about the responses received to a complaint about the behaviour of wing staff at HMP Stocken. Our investigation found that staff did not fully address the issues complained about in their complaint responses.

A prisoner complained that HMP Peterborough had lost some of his property after he transferred to another establishment following a court appearance. Despite numerous requests Peterborough for specific information, we received no responses to our enquiries, so the complaint was upheld on the basis of the information available to us.

A prisoner complained that his recategorisation review had not taken place as scheduled at HMP Littlehey, and that staff were not following section 8.17 of the Security Categorisation Policy Framework.

A prisoner complained that he was not allowed to receive books at HMP Ranby unless they had come from an approved supplier. He said that this was not in accordance with the Incentives Policy Framework.

A prisoner complained that certificates he had obtained while at HMP Oakwood had not been issued to him. He was then transferred to multiple different establishments where the certificates did not follow him. After IPCI’s involvement, it was ascertained that certificates were never sent to the prisoner’s new establishment and Oakwood could not account for the whereabouts of the originals. However, they still had access to copies of the certificates.

A prisoner complained that whilst at Pentonville a parcel was sent into him, but he was in the process of being transferred at the time it arrived. However, despite the fact that Pentonville said they would forward the parcel on, the prisoner did not receive it. The IPCI investigation found that Pentonville sent the parcel on to the wrong prison.

A prisoner complained that the decision of the recategorisation appeal panel at HMP High Down was flawed, and contrary to the Security Categorisation Policy Framework. As part of the IPCI investigation, we found that High Down had yet to make the required changes following revised guidance, issued in November 2024, that prisoners within three years of release should be reviewed every 6 months dating from the point at which they have three years left to serve until earliest possible date of release.

A prisoner complained that there was a delay in providing him with medical photographs, despite money being deducted from his account shortly after the request was made. This happened on two occasions. Whilst the photographs were eventually provided to the prisoner, this was done after the prisoner used the complaints process. IPCI considered that the significant delay in providing these items was not reasonable.

A prisoner complained that on transfer to HMP Full Sutton, his solicitor’s telephone number was removed from his telephone pin list, despite being authorised at his previous prison. He said that there was a delay in adding this number back onto his authorised contacts, and he questioned whether re-verifying contacts was reasonable.

A prisoner complained about the way the administrative process around charges against him of poor discipline was managed. He had been placed on report for three charges relating to paragraphs 17, 20 and 22 of the prison discipline policy. The charges were heard together and he was found guilty. The IPCI investigation established that although the charges were rightly laid, there were multiple errors in the process including failure to account or investigate the prisoners non-attendance, failure to inform compensation might be levied following a guilty verdict, and failure to record adequate reasoning as to how the finding of guilt was established.