Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that he wanted a negative IEP warning rescinded as he was not aware of the warning, and he was not provided with the paperwork. The prison had not rescinded the warning as they believed that the correct process had been followed. The IPCI investigation found that the prison had not been policy compliant when issuing the IEP warning as it had been recorded incorrectly on NOMIS, as a general entry relating to negative behaviour.

A prisoner complained about breaches of the Incentive and Earned Privileges (IEP) policy at HMP Wakefield. The IPCI investigation found that staff were not always accurately recording downgrades and subsequent reviews, with procedural mistakes having been rectified on more than one occasion.

A prisoner complained that he had been subject to an unlawful Use of Force (UoF) when he had refused to comply with an order for him to return to his cell. He also complained about the prison’s lack of compliance with the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework and the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework in relation to the incident. The IPCI Investigation found that the restraint carried out was not proportionate to the threat posed by the prisoner. We found several areas of concern in how the restraint was conducted and supervised.

A prisoner complained that he had been engaging with a partnership agency for months to help him get access to an Open University (OU) course. The prisoner was told several months later that his application for the course had not been received and that another application was necessary to get funding for the OU course. As a result, the prisoner was unable to enrol onto the OU course for its start date. The IPCI Investigation found that there had been a delay in processing his application due to poor communication between the partnership agency and the prison.

A prisoner complained that after he was transferred from HMP Exeter to HMP Portland, some of his property went missing. Exeter said the property had been sent onto Portland, but the IPCI investigation found that this was not correct. The property was located and sent onto the prisoner – albeit 12 months after his transfer.

A prisoner complained that when he transferred from HMP Dartmoor to HMP Five Wells, a personal identity document had gone missing. Five Wells said that they had not received it and advised the prisoner should contact Dartmoor, despite the prison being closed. The IPCI investigation found that property in the same bag as the document had arrived at Five Wells and when we asked them to look again, the document was found.

A prisoner complained that staff refused to return property gifted to him by another prisoner and unfairly confiscated it from his cell by staff at HMP Swaleside. He also requested a copy of his cell clearance paperwork. After IPCI’s involvement the prisoner’s property card was checked and whilst it was established that the Governor had not approved a gift from another prisoner, we found that staff gave inconsistent advice to the prisoner concerning gift applications and that staff were unable to provide a copy of the cell clearance certificate.

A prisoner complained that he was not paid on time after completing in-cell recycling activity at HMP Swaleside. Our IPCI investigation found this to be the case, due to delays in prisons staff confirming what work had been completed to trigger payments.

A prisoner complained that following a DST search, his property was damaged. The prison accepted liability and offered compensation in line with the local maximum amounts. The IPCI investigation found that the compensation was inadequate and confirmed that there is no authority for establishments to put in place local maximums for compensation.

A prisoner complained about inaccurate information in his OASys report. The IPCI investigation established that the OASys did include information taken from CPS documentation, which was not pertinent to his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).