Complaint investigation summaries

IPCI noted that the loss of valuable property is a serious concern and recommended that the prisoner receive an apology and compensation. In addition, IPCI recommended that the prison review local systems and staff practices for recording and storing property, particularly valuable items, and to strengthen monitoring arrangements to ensure compliance with national policy and reduce the risk of future losses.

The property was delivered to the prisoner. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.

IPCI found that there had been confusion arising from the prisoner’s original application in which he had stipulated specific exotic fruits that were not available. Fruit and milk were eventually provided, and the prison gave assurance of improved communication between them and the Chaplaincy going forward to avoid similar difficulties in the future. Therefore, no recommendations were made.

No recommendations were made as the prison was aware of the requirement to invite representations prior to a re-categorisation review and had apologised to the prisoner for their error. As the prisoner’s next review was due to take place within the next three months, and some updated information was being sought from the Home Office about his immigration status, an earlier review was not recommended.

IPCI partially upheld the complaint on the basis that Lowdham Grange could not provide evidence that a cell clearance was completed, as the cell clearance paperwork had not been retained. The prison said that this was not reflective of its usual practice, however, a copy of the outcome letter was sent to the Governor to ensure they were aware of this matter. The prisoner had already accepted the prison’s compensation offer. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of their complaint.

IPCI partially upheld the complaint as there was evidence of initial confusion which resulted in the prisoner not being provided with food menus. A copy of the outcome letter was sent to the Governor to ensure that appropriate assurances and processes are in place for prisoners in similar situations, in order to avoid delays in issuing menus. We did not uphold the complaint in relation to access to food. The investigation found that food was still available as the prisoner was unlocked to attend the servery. There was no evidence that the prisoner was denied food, went without food during this period, or that staff failed to respond to concerns raised.

We found that the use of RBH was not entirely in line with policy and current training and it had not been documented as required by policy. We made recommendations that HMPPS review the use of RBH on this occasion and that, in future, they would only deviate from policy with express agreement of policy holders. We also recommended that the correct format be used to record the use of RBH and that it should be documented as set out in policy.

We recommended that HMP Swaleside apologise to the complainant. We also recommended that HMP Swaleside take action to ensure that staff are aware of the expected emergency cell bell response times and appropriately prioritise responses, including improving responses for prisoners with serious pre-existing health conditions.

While a COMP 1A about recategorisation does not trigger an automatic recategorisation review, prisons cannot prevent prisoners from appealing the response to a COMP 1. HMP Lowdham Grange accepted this clarification, and the issue was highlighted to the Governor for their attention.

We recommended that HMP Lowdham Grange apologise to the complainant for the mishandling of evidence in this case. We also recommended that HMP Lowdham Grange determines the most appropriate method for preserving BWVC footage and use of force paperwork, and provides evidence of how this is implemented.