Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained that staff conducted a full search in a closed visits room where there was a CCTV camera. IPCI upheld the complaint as the prison breached national policy by carrying out a full search in a room which is covered by CCTV. The prison also breached policy by failing to recognise and process a Subject Access Request (SAR) contained within the prisoner’s complaint.

The prisoner complained that staff incorrectly confiscated property during a cell clearance. IPCI found that some of the items that the prisoner said had been confiscated were still in his possession. However, some items had been incorrectly confiscated. The complaint was therefore partially upheld.

The prisoner complained that his property went missing following his transfer from HMP Springhill to HMP The Mount and that some items had been incorrectly confiscated by HMP Springhill. IPCI partially upheld the complaint. We found that some items were missing and, as a cell clearance had been conducted, responsibility lay with HMP Springhill. However, some items were found in the prisoner’s cell but were not recorded on his property cards, and there was no evidence that they had been legitimately obtained, so the prison acted in line with policy by confiscating them.

The prisoner complained that property was lost following his transfer from HMP Oakwood to HMP Wormwood Scrubs. Our investigation found that several parcels of follow-on property did not reach the receiving prison and could not later be located. HMP Oakwood did not notify HMP Wormwood Scrubs that the property was being sent, despite this being a requirement of national policy. There was also inadequate recording of the property, with documentation missing key information required by the Prisoners' Property Policy Framework. We found that Oakwood did not follow up the failed deliveries or pursue a compensation claim with the courier company after the property went missing.

The complainant said that HMP Millsike could not account for a clothing parcel sent to him by his family, giving conflicting explanations about its contents and whether it had been issued or returned. The investigation found that the prison failed to keep a clear audit trail of what items were received and what action was taken, and provided inconsistent, unsupported responses to the complaint. As a result, Millsike was unable to account for the property that the complainant said was missing, which was not in line with policy and caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

The complainant said that items were missing and damaged when he received his follow on property at HMP Millsike, and that the prison did not properly investigate or resolve his concerns. The investigation found that the prison failed to manage the complaint in line with policy, did not provide clear ownership or communication, and did not cooperate with IPCI’s enquiries, causing avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

A prisoner complained he was removed from his role as a Neurodiversity Peer Advocate at HMP Millsike in July 2025 without warning, review, or consideration of his neurodiversity needs. While staff later engaged with him, considered reasonable adjustments, and supported him into alternative roles, this was not done at the point of removal and was not communicated clearly or promptly. Although confidentiality and safety concerns provided a legitimate basis, the lack of timely explanation, documented equality consideration, and early support caused avoidable distress and undermined transparency. The prison’s failure to provide requested information to IPCI further limited scrutiny of the decision making.

A prisoner complained that their ACCT checks were not being completed correctly. The investigation found that on a small number of occasions the required number of checks per hour had not been completed. These errors were rare and were noted by staff at the time. Although the errors were limited, the prison acknowledged the importance of completing ACCT checks properly to ensure prisoners are kept safe, and agreed to reinforce this with staff at senior management level. The prisoner also complained that they had been unfairly and unsafely moved to a different wing. The investigation did not find that the decision to move was inappropriate. However, it found that the prison did not keep accurate records of meetings and discussions relating to the decision.

A prisoner complained that important documents sent to him at HMP Fosse Way could not be located. The parcel, which was sent by a friend using Royal Mail tracking under Rule 39, was recorded as delivered to the prison. The prison’s postal log confirmed that mail arrived, but said it was for another prisoner with the same name. As the sender was not a legal adviser or recognised organisation, the parcel may not have met the requirements for Rule 39 handling and may have been treated as unauthorised correspondence. While it was not possible to establish definitively what happened to the parcel, the investigation found that it is likely that the item delivered was the missing documents.

A prisoner complained that he did not have access to open air on multiple days over multiple months. Complaint responses stated that this was due to staffing issues and a restricted regime. The investigation found that the prison did not comply with national policy and that prisoners were not afforded the statutory minimum time in the open air for a prolonged period.