Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that his legal documents were sent to external storage without his authority. Legal papers are not subject to standard property limits, and there was no evidence to show the decision was justified or properly recorded. The investigation also found that the prisoner did not receive a response to his complaint appeal, and that the prison failed to provide key records or cooperate with requests during the investigation. Although action was later taken to locate and return the property, this was only after IPCI involvement.

A prisoner complained about being assessed as eligible for the Building Choices Programme, stating that he did not meet the criteria and that his disability had not been properly considered. The investigation found that staff had taken reasonable steps to explain the programme and eligibility criteria. However, the prison did not provide requested complaint documentation during the investigation, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prisoner’s cognitive impairment had been properly considered in responses to his complaints.

A prisoner complained that he did not receive all of his property after transferring to HMP Millsike and remained without key items for a prolonged period. Although some items were eventually issued, delays were significant and the prison did not provide clear information, updates, or timescales. The investigation also found that the prison did not respond fully to requests for information, which limited oversight. In addition, the same manager responded to both stages of the complaint, meaning the appeal did not provide independent review as required.

Humber were unable to provide the prisoner with a kettle/flask in line with HMPPS National Standards. He had rejected the only one they had as it had previously been used to boil fabric conditioner. They ordered more, but as an interim measure, provision was made for him obtain hot water from a peer to make hot drinks.

A prisoner complained that his property went missing after staff failed to secure it when he was segregated. The investigation established that a cell clearance wasn’t completed, and that staff wrongly opened his door when his cell sheet was swapped. Although he was offered a small amount of compensation, the calculation was wrongly based on local facilities lists.

A young person appealed the outcome of an adjudication where he was convicted of damaging prison property. The investigation established that the damage to the property was related to acts in preparation for self-harm, and on three previous occasions, the finding of guilt was quashed for these reasons. The Record of Hearing did not establish why this defence was not investigated in this case, therefore we recommended the outcome should be quashed.

The prisoner complained about several of his books that were sent for security swabbing at HMP Moorland and had gone missing. The investigation established that HMP Moorland had not recorded the titles of the books, but rather recorded ‘a quantity’. It was clear that he had possessed these books at another establishment, and as he no longer had them in possession, we recommended compensation. It was also apparent that HMP Moorland had established all of this during their complaint response phase.

The prisoner complained that on transfer from HMP Manchester, his property had gone missing. The investigation established that Ranby accepted responsibility for the loss, and had offered compensation. The prisoner had complained separately about the level of compensation offered.

The prisoner complained about the delay in being issued his follow-on property, which had arrived at HMP Garth. Following our involvement, Garth finally processed the property but this took around 4 months before being issued to the prisoner. The delay was unreasonable.

The prisoner complained that he was refused child contact and access to photographs of children under the age of 18. He said he was not aware that child contact restrictions were in place and was unhappy with the decision. He also complained about the length of time taken by the prison to respond to his complaint. We did not uphold the complaint relating to the refusal of child contact and photographs. We were satisfied that the prison had properly applied the Public Protection Framework and completed a Person Posing a Risk to Children (PPRC) assessment in line with policy. The prisoner had held a PPRC alert for many years and on the balance of probabilities, it was likely he was aware that child contact restrictions were in place.