Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained about the loss of valuable property during his transfer from HMP Hewell to HMP Birmingham. Records indicate that the property never left HMP Hewell. The prison agreed to write to the prisoner to apologise for the significant delay in resolving the complaint and invite him to provide evidence of the missing items and their value. The Governor at HMP Hewell also confirmed that they would review property recording processes, establish audit controls and escalation procedures for handling property complaints, and implement annual reviews and staff training on property handling and complaint management.

The prisoner complained that some of his property went missing after a transfer from HMP Leeds to HMP Lowdham Grange. The investigation revealed multiple issues at both prisons where the property paperwork was not completed correctly or not completed at all and where policy was not adhered to.

A prisoner complained that he was being body scanned every two weeks in the High Security Unit (HSU) at HMP Belmarsh. There was a lack of evidence to support the prison’s decision for routine scanning and their reasons for doing so had not been recorded in the monthly security meeting minutes as required by the Use of X-Ray Body Scanners Policy Framework. Routine scanning ceased during the course of our investigation following a review by the prison.

A prisoner complained that some of his property had been lost or damaged when he transferred from HMP Long Lartin to HMP Wakefield. There was no evidence that his property had been sealed in his presence prior to the transfer or that the seal numbers of his bags left at HMP Long Lartin had been recorded.

The prisoner complained about the designation of HMP Wormwood Scrubs as the prison for his progression to the adult estate as he felt he would be under threat. The prison addressed this point adequately, but IPCI had concerns about insufficient Multi-Disciplinary Meetings (MDMs) with respect to the transfer, and over-reliance on the Offender Flows Protocol instead of national policy when making the decision. While IPCI acknowledged ministerial changes caused periods of adjustment for HMP Feltham, they highlighted these potential weak points in process to the Area Executive Director to keep abreast of the situation.

The prisoner complained that the prison lost a legal letter and asked the prison to explain what went wrong. The prison explained that staff should have taken the letter to their Business Hub for processing. They may have completely failed to do so or posted it out without doing so. In any event, the prison accepted that the letter was lost.

The prisoner’s complaint concerned the contradictory processes HMP Onley relied on to refuse refunds for prisoners’ canteen refund requests for missing items. HMP Onley were not investigating complaints individually and were providing generic responses, adapting local instructions unfairly so that prisoners were not entitled to refunds in any situation.

The prisoner claimed that an expensive sentimental ring had been lost on a transfer between police custody and HMP Belmarsh. Records showed the ring travelled with him in a sealed valuables bag, however HMP Belmarsh did not record any valuables on arrival.

The prisoner complained about his courtesy cell lock being damaged by other prisoners and that there was a delay in this being repaired & CCTV being viewed by the prison to identify who was responsible and take appropriate action to fix this.

The prisoner complained that property she asked to be handed out on a visit was not actioned, and she later saw a prisoner wearing one of the items she had asked to be handed out. The prison was unable to locate her property or her written handout form, or account for what had happened to her property.