Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained that relevant reports had not been updated which meant that the prison was using outdated information about him. He said this outdated information led to the prison requiring him to complete risk reduction work which would duplicate work he had already done and that this impeded his progression.

The prisoner complained that some of his property, including personal paperwork, went missing after a transfer. Clothing was recovered but some of the paperwork ended up with another prisoner, representing a data breach.

The complainant raised concerns that a request to attend his grandmother’s funeral was refused. IPCI partially upheld the complaint because the prison had not clearly documented their decision or rationale.

The complainant said that property he valued at £1,500 was taken from his cell during association on a given date. He felt that staff had not made sufficient effort to recover his belongings and said that they should view the CCTV as this would identify who was responsible. Full Sutton advised that it was not possible as they did not have the resources to devote to this. By his own admission the complainant confirmed that he frequently allowed other prisoners to enter his cell when he was absent to use his cue stick. The prison advised that prisoners did have the option of asking staff to lock their cells in their absence. 10 items, which included nine electrical items, were reported as missing but 2 items were recovered during checks and returned to the complainant. However, the complainant’s request to retain the CCTV footage was overlooked by Full Sutton and the complaint was partially upheld on that basis.

The prisoner complained that clothes he sent to the laundry were going missing. We upheld the complaint as the prison failed to investigate and was not able to provide us with any relevant information about the missing property.

The complainant was receiving incoming Rule 39 Mail punctured with several holes from a hole punch, damaging the internal letter and making it difficult for the prisoner to read. We liaised with Littlehey and established a change in procedure. They agreed that Rule 39 letters will only be given a single punched hole to reduce damage to the correspondence.

A prisoner complained that he suffered financial loss following a period in the Segregation Unit, including loss of earnings and missing clothing. IPCI found the prison had not properly addressed the prisoner's concerns about pay and property and could not provide records showing how these matters had been considered or resolved. The complaint was upheld.

A prisoner complained that staff acted inappropriately when he was moved to the Segregation Unit following an allegation made by another prisoner. He believed the decision was unfair and discriminatory. IPCI found it was reasonable for staff to take immediate protective action while safeguarding concerns were assessed, and found no evidence that the decision was discriminatory. However, the prison was unable to provide records showing how the prisoner's segregation was reviewed and managed. The complaint was therefore partially upheld.

The prisoner complained that his property went missing at The Mount. He also complained that the prison did not complete the required paperwork in relation to his property. The investigation found that The Mount was unable to provide a copy of the relevant paperwork, and this was in contravention of the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework. This aspect of the complaint was upheld. The prisoner’s property was later sent to him at another prison, and we found that none of his property was missing. This aspect of the complaint was therefore not upheld.

The prisoner complained he was incorrectly told by prison staff to open his sealed Rule 39 letter to his solicitor. We conducted enquiries to establish if the letter was opened because staff had reasonable grounds to believe it had an illicit enclosure; the relevant national policies are clear that this must be properly recorded. We were not provided with any evidence or record of this by Long Lartin, or a reasonable explanation why a Rule 39 letter had been opened. The absence of any records or evidence indicated that the prisoner was incorrectly asked to show his legal/Rule 39 letter to staff.