Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained about property lost when he moved from HMP Elmley to HMP Swaleside. The investigation found that HMP Elmley had failed to check the prisoner’s property and record any discrepancies on his property card when he left the prison.

A prisoner complained that his outgoing Rule 39 mail – addressed to MOJ Legal Department - had been opened and responded to by prison staff. The IPCI investigation found that this letter was not covered by Rule 39 or confidential access handling arrangements, but staff should not have responded to the letter.

A prisoner complained about a recategorisation where he disagreed with the decision not to downgrade him. He alleged that the prison had ignored his substantial representations. He also alleged that behaviours he exhibited as a result of his neurodiversity issues were wrongly recorded as aggressive, and that his progression was being hindered by outstanding sentence progression work he wasn’t allowed to complete. The IPCI investigation found that proper consideration was not paid to his representations which contained some salient points.

A prisoner complained that he wasn’t allowed to have family send in books for him. The IPCI investigation established that Wakefield required prisoners to complete an ‘approved parcel request form (APRF)’ before such items could be sent in, and this did not allow such parcels to be received from friends and family. This was in contravention to the national policy advice that we received on this matter, which confirmed books can be ordered by family and sent from approved suppliers or direct, where not available from approved suppliers.

A prisoner complained that they had been assaulted because of staff not properly managing the risk presented by another prisoner. The IPCI investigation established that risk had not been managed adequately and the original complaint response from the prison had wrongly assigned blame for assault to information disclosed by the complainant.

A prisoner complained that he had been prevented from purchasing vapes because of an Adjudication punishment. During the IPCI investigation we were informed that this matter had been subsequently discussed at an adjudication standardisation meeting. This resulted in a change to practice to allow the purchase of the vapes.

A prisoner complained about the decision not to downgrade him at the last categorisation review. The IPCI investigation established that the prisoner had not been given sufficient explanation of the reasoning behind the decision. We were also concerned about the significance ascribed to a single Intelligence Report (IR).

A prisoner complained that Reception had not issued him with a razor. The prison confirmed it had not. We upheld the complaint and asked the Governor to check that the prisoner had now been issued with a razor.

A prisoner complained that despite appealing his E-List status decision, he had not received a response. The IPCI investigation found that there were some procedural failures relating to the sending and returning of Annex C appeal forms at the prison. These were highlighted to the Governor, so that the process could be improved for the future.

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.