Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained about the use of Rigid Bar Handcuffs (RBH) as part of a security operation at HMP Long Lartin. He complained that he was handcuffed incorrectly and left unsupervised while handcuffed in a holding cell.

The prisoner complained that staff failed to respond promptly to his emergency cell bell on several occasions, despite him having a serious pre-existing health condition. The prisoner also complained that the prison did not properly investigate these incidents. We found that emergency cell bells were not always responded to within expected timescales, and this part of the complaint was partially upheld. The complaint about how the prison investigated the incidents was not upheld.

The prisoner complained that they lost their Category C status after an unauthorised item was found in their possession, despite the related adjudication being dismissed. The prisoner also complained that they were told they could not submit a COMP 1A form to appeal recategorisation-related decisions. We did not uphold the complaint regarding the recategorisation decision as we were satisfied that the decision was reasonable and made in line with national policy. We partially upheld the complaint in relation to the handling of the COMP 1A; prisoners should never be prevented from using the complaints process outside of the provisions to manage unreasonable complainants.

The prisoner complained about the use of PAVA on them. They said that PAVA was not used as a last resort, and that proper procedures were not followed after its use, including the retention of BWVC and CCTV footage of the incident. We could not conclude that staff’s decision to use PAVA was unreasonable, in breach of national policy, or that alternative PPE options were not considered. However, the complaint was partially upheld in relation to the lack of mandatory retention of evidence.

The prisoner complained about the loss of valuable property during his transfer from HMP Hewell to HMP Birmingham. Records indicate that the property never left HMP Hewell. The prison agreed to write to the prisoner to apologise for the significant delay in resolving the complaint and invite him to provide evidence of the missing items and their value. The Governor at HMP Hewell also confirmed that they would review property recording processes, establish audit controls and escalation procedures for handling property complaints, and implement annual reviews and staff training on property handling and complaint management.

The prisoner complained that some of his property went missing after a transfer from HMP Leeds to HMP Lowdham Grange. The investigation revealed multiple issues at both prisons where the property paperwork was not completed correctly or not completed at all and where policy was not adhered to.

A prisoner complained that he was being body scanned every two weeks in the High Security Unit (HSU) at HMP Belmarsh. There was a lack of evidence to support the prison’s decision for routine scanning and their reasons for doing so had not been recorded in the monthly security meeting minutes as required by the Use of X-Ray Body Scanners Policy Framework. Routine scanning ceased during the course of our investigation following a review by the prison.

A prisoner complained that some of his property had been lost or damaged when he transferred from HMP Long Lartin to HMP Wakefield. There was no evidence that his property had been sealed in his presence prior to the transfer or that the seal numbers of his bags left at HMP Long Lartin had been recorded.

The prisoner complained about the designation of HMP Wormwood Scrubs as the prison for his progression to the adult estate as he felt he would be under threat. The prison addressed this point adequately, but IPCI had concerns about insufficient Multi-Disciplinary Meetings (MDMs) with respect to the transfer, and over-reliance on the Offender Flows Protocol instead of national policy when making the decision. While IPCI acknowledged ministerial changes caused periods of adjustment for HMP Feltham, they highlighted these potential weak points in process to the Area Executive Director to keep abreast of the situation.

The prisoner complained that the prison lost a legal letter and asked the prison to explain what went wrong. The prison explained that staff should have taken the letter to their Business Hub for processing. They may have completely failed to do so or posted it out without doing so. In any event, the prison accepted that the letter was lost.