Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that he was left without functioning sanitation for 2 weeks. Although the IPCI investigation could not establish the exact length of time, it was clear that the prison had taken 7 days to log the fault to be fixed, although it was then fixed promptly.

A prisoner complained that a large amount of property went missing when he transferred from HMP Lincoln to HMP Stocken. The IPCI investigation established that his stored property had not transferred with him, and that several items were recorded as failing to arrive at Stocken. Lincoln was unable to evidence what property had subsequently been sent on.

A prisoner complained that staff had damaged his property, and the prison had refused to provide him CCTV footage that might reveal who damaged it. The IPCI investigation found no evidence to suggest that staff had damaged his property but partially upheld the complaint on the basis that staff had wrongly told him he had no right to request the footage and had not treated his request as a SAR or FOI request.

A prisoner complained that he had been downgraded after being placed on report, and that he should not have been subjected to double punishment. The IPCI investigation found that it was reasonable that he was downgraded following being placed on report. However, we partially upheld this case on the basis that the prison did not review his IEP level following the adjudication being quashed, as required by policy.

A prisoner complained that he was not being provided with a gluten free diet by staff at HMP Parc. The IPCI investigation found that the prisoner’s records evidenced that there were occasions when his dietary needs had not been met.

A prisoner complained about the low level of compensation offered to him by staff at HMP High Down after they lost his property. The IPCI investigation found that the prison was using maximums within the facilities list to calculate compensation which is against national policy.

A prisoner complained about the behaviour of staff at HMP Woodhill in October 2024. The prisoner said staff in reception had bullied and threatened him when he had gone to collect his property. The complaint response said a decision log enquiry would be carried out. The IPCI investigation found that this had not happened.

A prisoner complained about the conduct of an officer at HMP Woodhill in December 2024. He said that the complaint response from the prison told him an investigation would be carried out, which he believed hadn’t happened. The IPCI investigation found this to be the case.

A prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Doncaster when they left for another establishment. Before our investigation had been completed, Doncaster offered £50.00 in compensation to the prisoner, which he accepted.

A prisoner complained that several letters they had tried to send to embassies were intercepted and opened by staff at HMP Brixton. The IPCI investigation found that although staff had reasonable belief the letters were not legitimate, they did not comply with national policy when intercepting this mail. Mail to embassies is considered ‘confidential access’ so there is a requirement that the mail is opened in the prisoner’s presence, and that they are told this communication is going to be intercepted.