Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained that ‘follow on’ property from HMP Leeds failed to arrive. The IPCI investigation established that prior to transfer the prisoner packed his property, but that the contents had not been checked against the property cards to ensure what the bags contained. This was in breach of policy.

The prisoner complained about damage to his stereo when he transferred between Ranby and Bullingdon. He initially complained to Geo Amey who investigated and did not uphold his complaint. Neither Ranby or Bullingdon investigated the matter, neither demonstrated good complaint handling practice, or adherence to the requirements of the property framework to audit the property.

The prisoner complained about damage to correspondence sent in under r39 which had been damaged as part of security screening practices. The IPCI investigation established there was no clear guidance in the prison on how mail should be tested, which needed to be addressed.

The prisoner complained about damage to books sent in which had been pierced several times as part of security screening practices. The investigation established there was no clear guidance in the prison on how mail should be tested.

The prisoner complained about the delay in completing his Offender Assessment System risk assessment report and sentence plan while he was at HMP Oakwood. We partially upheld the complaint due to the report being completed more than seven months after sentencing (the target is ten weeks).

The prisoner complained that some of his property had gone missing following his segregation at Swaleside. The investigation found that after the prisoner assaulted an officer, including throwing bodily fluids at him, the cell was found to have excrement and bodily fluids in it. Any contaminated property was disposed of. However, the property cards were not updated to reflect this.

The prisoner complained that some of his property had gone missing following his segregation at Forest Bank. The IPCI investigation found that the property cards and cell clearance certificates had not been retained in accordance with the policy. It was therefore not possible to establish what had been lost.

The prisoner complained that his Prison Offender Manager had not had enough contact with him for preparation of his initial sentence plan. Although the POM’s caseload made additional contact difficult, they apologised for this, and recognised the failure to explain the delay to the prisoner for 16 weeks, damaged the prisoner’s confidence in their POM.

The prisoner complained that HMP Long Lartin had misinterpreted the policy relating to their 16–18-year-old child visiting using the Approved Visitors Scheme (AVS). The AVS requires most visitors to be security cleared before being allowed to visit prisoners in the high security estate (including post 16). However, this is not the case if the 16–18-year-old is visiting accompanied by another AVS approved adult. Our investigation found that HMPS Long Lartin had misunderstood this latter point.

The prisoner said that he had handed a complaint form to a member of staff who then refused to give it back when asked. The officer said that they had already disposed of the complaint form at the prisoner’s request. We partially upheld the complaint as although the staff members actions were not directly against policy, we did not consider staff accepting complaints directly to be good practice. The member of staff should have directed the prisoner to use the complaint box on the wing.