Complaint investigation summaries

We upheld the complaint because although the prisoner had breached his DHL compact, the prison had not followed their own Activity and Allocation policy, or IEP policy and the prisoner had therefore not been correctly removed from his employment. We recommended that the Governor compensate the prisoner for loss of earnings. We asked that the prisons’ Activity and Allocation strategy and IEP policy is updated to include a step-by-step process for dismissal, and that this is communicated to all relevant staff.

We upheld the complaint. Berwyn apologised to the prisoner and assured him that the Rule 39 procedures had been re-enforced with the mail room.

Our investigation found that the prison was aware of the prisoner’s needs therefore we recommended the prison issue an apology to the prisoner for not relocating him to a suitable cell at the earliest opportunity. We also recommended the prison compensate the prisoner for charges paid for a TV he was unable to use and issue a notice to staff to ensure reasonable adjustments are made to accommodate the needs of prisoners with a disability.

We recommended the prison compensate the prisoner for the missing items. We also recommended the prison issue notices to staff regarding the procedures of completing Cell Clearance certificates, the recording of property when it is removed from cells and the need to complete an Intelligence Report when unauthorised items are found in a cell. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.

Our investigation found that the prison did not act in line with national policy. We asked that the prison apologise to the prisoner, and issue notices to both staff and prisoners to ensure they were all aware of the timescales required to book and arrange video calls to meet the requirements of the policy.

The prison had not maintained clear and accurate property records, so we recommended a Notice to Staff is issued, reminding them of the requirements of the policy framework. Additionally, we asked the prison to provide evidence of their procedures for removing and storing property in the event of a fire.

The investigation revealed the prison had not correctly interpreted the policy framework relating to the prison’s responsibility for property handed over to the laundry. We therefore recommended the prison consider introducing a procedure to itemise all items sent to the laundry to ensure the maintenance of clear and accurate records. We also recommended the prison apologised to the prisoner and paid full compensation for the missing items. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI and, as a recurring issue, this has been escalated to the relevant national policy team.

We partially upheld this complaint on the basis that the prison had not retained CCTV footage and had not appropriately investigated the prisoner’s complaint. We recommended that the Governor conduct a full and proper investigation of the complaint and reminds staff of the requirements for completing use of force paperwork.

We partially upheld his complaint on the basis that the prison confirmed that at the time of the complaint, the complaints process switched to an online google system, which failed to register received complaints (the new process was subsequently abandoned). The prison issued the prisoner a letter of apology.

We partially upheld the complaint as there is an expectation that cell bells will be answered within five minutes. However, on the day in question, while the prison was in night state, a system malfunction had set fire alarms off all across the prison. Staff were required to physically check every area for any sign of a fire. No recommendations were made as this was an extra-ordinary set of circumstances and it was clear from correspondence with Fosse Way that staff are aware that cell bells should be answered as soon as possible and ideally within five minutes.