Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Woodhill
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained that prisoners were able to enter his cell and take his vape because staff had not locked the door. The prison accepted responsibility and issued a vape starter kit to the prisoner.
Recommendations/outcome:
No recommendation made as the prison issued a vape starter kit to the prisoner.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Swaleside
Complaint category:
Medical
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that whilst they were in segregation, they had two dental appointments booked but they were not collected and so did not attend these.
The IPCI investigation found that the complaint responses were incorrect as they told the prisoner that they could not uphold the complaint due to them waiting two months to raise this issue. This is incorrect as they are allowed to raise a complaint within three months of the incident happening. It also found that although the prison apologised for any staff error or miscommunication, it did not appear to provide any reasons why the appointments were missed. Because of these errors, this part of the complaint was upheld.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI said it would be good practice to record the reasons for missed appointments on NOMIS case notes to avoid any confusion in the future and for complaint responses to provide those reasons to the complainant. They also said it would be helpful for anyone responding to complaint responses to be aware of the timescales within the complaints policy framework. We highlighted this to the Governor.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Aylesbury
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained that staff were not wearing correct PPE when serving food. IPCI found HMP Aylesbury were not meeting the requirements of national policy as staff did not have in date food hygiene certificates and were not routinely wearing gloves when serving food.
Recommendations/outcome:
HMP Aylesbury were appropriately addressing these issues, so no recommendations were made.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Littlehey
Complaint category:
Categorisation, progression & release preparation
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained that they had been turned down for a job role in the prison without a full explanation being given for the refusal. While the prisoner was initially told the refusal was due to security intelligence and behaviour, we found there was no evidence of any security intelligence which would have prevented the prisoner from obtaining the job role. The prison later clarified that the reason for refusal was due to an adjudication.
Recommendations/outcome:
The complaint was partially upheld due to inaccurate information being provided to the prisoner. We did not fully uphold the complaint due to the prisoner having received an adjudication, which had an impact on his ability to secure the job role.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Garth
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained about the delay in being issued his follow-on property, which had arrived at HMP Garth. Following our involvement, Garth finally processed the property, but this took over four months to process before being issued to the prisoner. The delay was unreasonable.
Recommendations/outcome:
The prisoner has been reunited with his follow-on property. Investigation copied to Governor, so he is aware of this issue.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Lowdham Grange
Complaint category:
Staff behaviour
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained that staff did not provide appropriate support or open an ACCT when they had self-harmed. They said they were unable to access healthcare due to being on basic IEP. IPCI found no evidence that staff did not open an ACCT after the prisoner's act of self-harm, however, there was evidence that wing staff had not taken the prisoner to healthcare due to them being on basic. This was a breach of national policy. IPCI also found the prison's response to the prisoner’s complaints were not policy compliant.
Recommendations/outcome:
For HMP Lowdham Grange to offer the prisoner an apology, for the Governor to ensure all staff are aware prisoners on basic IEP can access healthcare, including being let out of their cell to attend healthcare, and to ensure there are quality assurance checks on complaint responses.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Chelmsford
Complaint category:
Work, pay & money
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained that he was transferred to another prison before he received his canteen order so, having not received the items, he requested a refund but the prison had not refunded him. As a result of the investigation, the prison acknowledged the prisoner received neither the canteen nor a refund and arranged for a refund to be processed.
Recommendations/outcome:
As the prison had already acknowledged its error and had also taken steps to implement a system for prisoners to sign for receipt of their canteen, there was no need to make any recommendations. We hold the view that this complaint should clearly have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Nottingham
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner transferred to a new wing, but he complained that his new cell did not have a mattress or any bedding. He raised this with an officer at the time and it was rectified later that same evening.
Recommendations/outcome:
There was no need to make recommendations in this case because this did not appear to be a systemic problem at HMP Nottingham and, once the prison had addressed the prisoner’s complaint, he raised no further issues. We hold the view that this complaint should clearly have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Preston
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner set fire to his cell and was transferred to the SEG but, when staff destroyed the property left behind in the cell, he complained. The staff confirmed that the property had become damp and mouldy so presented a health hazard which was the reason it was destroyed.
Recommendations/outcome:
We did not uphold the substantive complaint as staff were acting in line with policy when they destroyed the property however, policy clearly states that whenever property is destroyed it has to be documented and this had not happened. The prison told us they had already been reviewing their local policy and had acknowledged the need to record when property is destroyed so we were satisfied the matter had been addressed and made no formal recommendations.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP The Mount
Complaint category:
Adjudication & IEP
Month investigation completed:
July
Year investigation completed:
2025
The prisoner complained about not being told about negative DPS entries made by staff in HMP The Mount, negating his ability to appeal against these and affecting his ability to gain enhanced status.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI partially upheld the complaint and recommended that the Governor review the warnings and entries and arrange to have these amended to include information about the prisoner’s medical conditions and self-certification; issue a Notice to Staff about the incentives policy, specifically printing negative warnings and the escalation of behaviour warnings, using negative behaviour entries before issuing incentive warnings if appropriate; issue a Notice to Staff about recording accurate information when prisoners cannot attend purposeful activity; explain to IPCI how prisoners are told about negative behaviour entries to ensure they can address their behaviour to avoid escalation to warnings; explain to IPCI what process is in place for prisoners who absent themselves from work under self-certification and need to be referred to healthcare; remind staff when conducting IEP reviews they do so in line with national policy.
