Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner was unhappy with the lack of contact he was getting with his Keyworker. In response to the IPCI investigation, the prison acknowledged this issue and attributed it to staffing pressures.

A prisoner complained that after a transfer to HMP Ford his passport and driving licence could not be located. Whilst the prison initially maintained the passport had not been sent on by the previous prison, following requests by IPCI, it transpired the passport had arrived but had been incorrectly placed in his core file, rather than in his stored valuables.

A prisoner complained that his Xbox and DVD player had been damaged as a result of the prisons use of cleaning products. The prisoner was initially told he could have replacement items sent in by his family, which would be swapped with the damaged items. Due to a change in prison policy concerning parcels sent in by friends and family however, the parcel was not accepted by the prison upon its arrival. The IPCI investigation also noted delays in responding to the prisoner’s complaint.

A prisoner complained that every time they attempted to call a family member, the phone disconnected. They were concerned that this issue was specific to them.

A prisoner complained that they had been unfairly searched twice in one month, against policy which states searches should occur once per month. The prisoner also flagged late responses to his internal complaints on this matter. The prison accepted the search had not been policy compliant which they attributed to new members of staff being unfamiliar with an agreed process for searches.

A prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Belmarsh after he had been moved to the segregation wing, and that this may have been mistakenly delivered to another prisoner. As part of the IPCI investigation, the prisoner’s property was checked, and it was established that some items had not been returned to him. We also noted that an original copy of his cell clearance certificate was not retained within his core file.

A prisoner complained that he was being prevented from progressing to category D open conditions as he was assessed as eligible for an intensive programme. He said that the relevant reviews were not completed at the relevant time, meaning that his suitability for this programme was no longer accurate. The IPCI investigation found that the prisoner’s review was not updated at the relevant time.

A prisoner complained that following an incident, they had been unlawfully kept in the segregation unit. The IPCI investigation identified that HMP Bristol had appropriate rationale for keeping the prisoner within the segregation unit, and this was in line with policy. However, there were procedural errors in their management of this, specifically in their record keeping, lack of paperwork, errors in the paperwork, segregation review board attendance, and the explanations provided to the prisoner.

A prisoner complained that they were subjected to an ‘illegal stop and search’, and that the officer involved was aggressive during the interaction. The IPCI investigation found the prison provided a satisfactory explanation as to why prisoners were being searched that day, and this was due to an increase in illicit substances being distributed on the yard. However, we were concerned that BWVC which had captured the interaction had not been retained, despite the prisoner making a complaint. National policy states that all video footage must be retained until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

A prisoner complained that they were not given sufficient time to consider a move to another wing and there was no opportunity to discuss or process the upcoming change, which would have been important given their neurodiverse needs. In addition, they were put on report for refusing a direct order and found guilty at adjudication. The prisoner asked for legal representation during the hearing, but this was declined.