Complaint investigation summaries

Humber were unable to provide the prisoner with a kettle/flask in line with HMPPS National Standards. He had rejected the only one they had as it had previously been used to boil fabric conditioner. They ordered more, but as an interim measure, provision was made for him obtain hot water from a peer to make hot drinks.

A prisoner complained that his property went missing after staff failed to secure it when he was segregated. The investigation established that a cell clearance wasn’t completed, and that staff wrongly opened his door when his cell sheet was swapped. Although he was offered a small amount of compensation, the calculation was wrongly based on local facilities lists.

A young person appealed the outcome of an adjudication where he was convicted of damaging prison property. The investigation established that the damage to the property was related to acts in preparation for self-harm, and on three previous occasions, the finding of guilt was quashed for these reasons. The Record of Hearing did not establish why this defence was not investigated in this case, therefore we recommended the outcome should be quashed.

The prisoner complained about several of his books that were sent for security swabbing at HMP Moorland and had gone missing. The investigation established that HMP Moorland had not recorded the titles of the books, but rather recorded ‘a quantity’. It was clear that he had possessed these books at another establishment, and as he no longer had them in possession, we recommended compensation. It was also apparent that HMP Moorland had established all of this during their complaint response phase.

The prisoner complained that on transfer from HMP Manchester, his property had gone missing. The investigation established that Ranby accepted responsibility for the loss, and had offered compensation. The prisoner had complained separately about the level of compensation offered.

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 around 4 months before being issued to the prisoner. The delay was unreasonable.

The prisoner complained that he was refused child contact and access to photographs of children under the age of 18. He said he was not aware that child contact restrictions were in place and was unhappy with the decision. He also complained about the length of time taken by the prison to respond to his complaint. We did not uphold the complaint relating to the refusal of child contact and photographs. We were satisfied that the prison had properly applied the Public Protection Framework and completed a Person Posing a Risk to Children (PPRC) assessment in line with policy. The prisoner had held a PPRC alert for many years and on the balance of probabilities, it was likely he was aware that child contact restrictions were in place.

The prisoner complained that his phone was lost during a transfer from HMP Peterborough to HMP Highpoint. IPCI found that despite Peterborough being unable to locate the phone, there were no records of the prisoner’s phone leaving the prison.

A prisoner complained that some of his property was missing when he transferred from HMP Forest Bank to HMP Oakwood. Forest Bank told the prisoner that they had sent everything on. However, after IPCI had started our investigation, the property arrived at Oakwood. It took over five months for the property to reach the prisoner and Forest Bank did not provide clear communication about the delay. They should have tracked the property and given accurate information when concerns were initially raised.

The prisoner complained about the prison’s failure to provide him with extra fruit and milk when he was observing Hindu fasting.