Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained because he was placed on closed visits for nine months after refusing to submit to a body scan. Our investigation found that whilst this was reviewed on a monthly basis, the records clearly referenced that he would remain on closed visit for at least nine months. We agreed with the decision to place him on closed visits after he was suspected of passing items, however reviews must be meaningful, and closed visits must not be used as a punishment.

The prisoner, who had hearing loss, complained that his visits with his solicitor, probation officer and psychologist were being held in closed visit conditions.

The prisoner complained about the loss of his property while he was in custody. He believed it had probably happened when he transferred from HMP Leeds to HMP Moorland. After IPCI’s involvement, the property was located and sent to the complainant as he was no longer in custody.

The prisoner complained that he was put on report for disobeying an order in order to comply with a body scan. He claimed he was not aware that what was being asked of him, was a lawful order. Our investigation found the prisoner was not given sufficient information in reception, or during the body scanning process.

The prisoner complained about his re-categorisation review because he believed it had not followed the Security Categorisation Policy Framework; he felt he had been discriminated against due to his immigration status and religious beliefs and he disputed some negative NOMIS entries. Our investigation found there were some flaws in the process, including failure to obtain pertinent paperwork (CCD3) from the Home Office.

The prisoner complained that after two separate incidents of self-harm, staff had not answered his emergency call bell within the stipulated timeframe. The prison admitted staff had not answered the call bell in the timeframe stipulated in the guidance and were unable to provide the cell bell records because of an antiquated system.

The prisoner complained that he was assaulted, and that staff did not respond to his complaints appropriately or provide the healthcare support he required.

The prisoner complained that staff opened a letter to court and looked inside it. Our investigation found that staff were routinely opening sealed outgoing mail to check for illicit enclosures. Staff were unaware that, under national policy, letters to court must be treated as confidential, that staff must inform prisoners that such letters can be handed in sealed and, if such letters are to be opened to check for an illicit enclosure, there must be reasonable grounds to suspect such an enclosure.

The prisoner complained that the prison was not responding to his complaints. At the time of the complaint, Lowdham Grange was managed by Sodexo, but has since been returned to HMPPS. Our investigation found there were significant issues with the effective management of the complaint process and IPCI offered advice on areas of improvement during a visit.

The prisoner complained that staff at HMP Rye Hill were looking at the contents of their Rule 39 / confidential access correspondence, before allowing them to be sealed. Our investigation found that Rye Hill understood confidential access requirements, but accepted some of their newer staff may not have been aware of the correct process.