Complaint investigation summaries

HMP Garth were unable to provide a copy of the cell clearance certificate, and the Governor was reminded of the importance of retaining key documentation to maintain an audit trail. However, there was evidence of confiscated property from the prisoner and on balance, we considered the cell clearance had been completed in line with national policy as the prisoner’s property card had clearly been used in the process. Therefore, no recommendations were made.

The gifting application process had been initiated by the prison but the paperwork was mislaid by staff. We considered the prisoner should not be at a detriment and recommended the Xbox is listed on the prisoner’s property card and returned either in-possession if the prisoner met the requirements of national policy, or into their stored property.

HMP Gartree had acknowledged opening the letter in error and had apologised to the prisoner. However, they had not appropriately documented the error in line with the requirements of national policy. The Governor was reminded of the importance of appropriate documentation of such instances, however no remedial recommendations were made.

There was no evidence to suggest that HMP Gartree had failed to follow the cell clearance process and therefore, were not responsible for any loss of property. However, Gartree did not appropriately respond to the prisoner’s complaint appeal or process his request for body worn video camera footage to be retained in line with national policy or as a FOI request. We recommended the Governor provide an apology and to provide evidence that every prison department is aware of their obligations to process requests made under the FOIA, whether explicitly or not.

IPCI concluded that the charge be dismissed because the prisoner said that he did not receive the DIS1 and the prison was unable to provide evidence that it was issued to him. We notified the prison of our findings and recommended that hat the finding of guilt be quashed, as there was no evidence that the DIS1 was issued.

There is no mandatory expectation for HMPPS to offer compensation for Rule 39/confidential access letters being opened in error. The process for authorising and issuing compensation was not followed when issuing the initial compensation offer and we did not consider the revised offer was unreasonable. However, HMP Frankland did not complete the actions required in national policy when confidential access correspondence is opened. We recommended that the Governor ensures all staff, including censors, are aware of the mandatory actions when confidential access correspondence is opened in error.

While HMP Lindholme had completed the cell clearance process, they were unable to locate the prisoner’s missing property that was documented to have been in the cell when it was cleared. They had also used a local cell clearance certificate. Lindholme rejected a mediation offer. We recommended Lindholme use the cell clearance certificate annexed to national policy to avoid any future confusion and to compensate the prisoner for the loss of their property.

The prison has apologised to the complainant. We made the Governor aware of the shortcomings of the complaint response. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.

The comment made was factual, and therefore an apology for incorrect information was not required. On review of the complaint response, the prison did not provide an adequate and meaningful reply as required in the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework. This aspect of the complaint was upheld. The Head of OMU apologised to the prisoner.

The appeal against the HDC was not upheld. However, IPCI agreed that there was a long delay in the PGD responding to the prisoner's letter. The PGD explained the reasons for this delay which did not amount to a systemic issue with confidential complaint responses. An apology had already been given and therefore IPCI made no further recommendations.