Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on ppo.gov.uk. Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Skip to content

Complaint investigation summaries

Read summaries of upheld and partially upheld investigations into complaints on this page. We keep information brief to protect the identities of people involved and we may decide not to publish a summary if the person making the complaint might be identified from it. Please visit our archive site to view complaint summaries published before February 2024.

Every month we publish statistics about the number of investigations we have completed and our decision for each one.

Use the search box below to search complaints by prison name or location.

Filters

171 complaints summaries

Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wymott

Complaint category:
Administration
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that staff at HMP Wymott were opening his Rule 39/confidential access mail, delaying issuing it to him, and had not responded to his complaint. IPCI found that the prison had followed policy on the opening of Rule 39/confidential access mail, but not the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework.
Recommendations/outcome:
We wrote to the Governor and drew their attention to how the prisoner’s complaint had been mishandled to ensure complaints are adequately replied to in future. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.

Upheld complaint against the Director of HMP Doncaster

Complaint category:
Property
Status:
Upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that HMP Doncaster had lost some of his property after he had to transfer without it. The prisoner was initially told that Doncaster had no property for him, but when they carried out a search as part of the investigation some additional property was found. This property was subsequently sent to the prisoner.
Recommendations/outcome:
No formal recommendations required as the property was found and delivered to the prisoner’s current establishment. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.

Partially upheld complaint against the Director of HMP Oakwood

Complaint category:
Administration
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained about the way his confidential access complaints were handled. The Deputy Director had rejected the complaints, explaining that they should be re-directed through the prison’s normal complaints procedure, having not met the confidential access criteria. The prisoner felt that the prison wanted to deter him from complaining, and was unhappy that the Deputy Director had responded, despite being the subject of the complaint.
Recommendations/outcome:
As the Deputy Director was the subject of the complaint, another senior manager should have responded to it. We upheld this particular element of the complaint. We did not make a recommendation, satisfied that this was an oversight and was unlikely to happen again. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.

Partially upheld complaint against the Director of HMP Dovegate

Complaint category:
Categorisation, progression & release preparation
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that his categorisation review was carried out more than six months late, despite him completing his outstanding offending behaviour work some months earlier. Our investigation found that that this contributed towards delaying his move to a Category C establishment and partially upheld the complaint.
Recommendations/outcome:
At the time our investigation concluded the prisoner had been recategorised to Category C and transferred to a suitable establishment. A copy of our outcome letter was sent to the Director of Dovegate to make him aware of the issues identified during the investigation.

Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Swaleside

Complaint category:
Property
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Swaleside, after they transferred to HMP Woodhill. Our investigation found that there was no evidence that the prisoner had received any of the remaining property. After IPCI’s involvement, a bag of stored property belonging to the prisoner was found at Swaleside.
Recommendations/outcome:
Swaleside agreed to send on the bag of property they had found.

Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wormwood Scrubs

Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Status:
Upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained about receiving food which did not consider his specific dietary requirements. He was allergic to nuts, gluten, wheat and fish. He reported that after one meal he went into anaphylactic shock and had to use his epi-pen.
Recommendations/outcome:
The prisoner had already been released when we concluded our investigation. After IPCI’s involvement the prison were reminded of the need for dietary conditions to be identified during the Reception Healthcare interview and communicated to the kitchens

Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP & YOI Moorland

Complaint category:
Adjudication & IEP
Status:
Upheld
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that they did not receive paper copies of six IEP warnings that were issued against them in April, June and July at HMP Moorland. Having investigated the matter, IPCI was satisfied that while he had not received the necessary notifications, prison staff had not treated him unreasonably or unfairly.
Recommendations/outcome:
We asked that the prison address the issue of incomplete notifications and to take action to prevent any recurrence.

Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Full Sutton

Complaint category:
Administration
Status:
Upheld
Month investigation completed:
April
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that his requests for CCTV footage were not being dealt with, and he was not provided with the requested footage. Our investigation found that this complaint was not being dealt with as SARs which should have been the case.
Recommendations/outcome:
No formal recommendations required as during the course of the investigation the prison instigated the SARs process for this matter.

Partially Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Low Newton

Complaint category:
Staff behaviour
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
April
Year investigation completed:
2024
A prisoner with a Gender Recognition Certificate held in the female estate complained that a male member of staff was present in the MDT suite while she completed a urine sample for an MDT. Our investigation could not establish this, but we concluded that more could be done to ensure Voluntary Agreements set out clearly the expectations around searching.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended the Governor review all VA’s with transgender prisoners, ensuring all are policy complaint and signed by both staff and prisoners.

Partially Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Onley

Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Status:
Partially upheld
Month investigation completed:
April
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained he was given pork sausages when he had ordered Halal chicken sausages. During our investigation we found the prison complaint and DIRF responses queried whether the prisoner had previously ordered non halal food which we found to be an irrelevant and confusing response.
Recommendations/outcome:
The prison accepted a mistake had been made and that their responses to the complaint and DIRF were confusing and unhelpful, and they apologised for the confusing responses and the error.