Complaint investigation summaries

The complainant said that HMP Millsike could not account for a clothing parcel sent to him by his family, giving conflicting explanations about its contents and whether it had been issued or returned. The investigation found that the prison failed to keep a clear audit trail of what items were received and what action was taken, and provided inconsistent, unsupported responses to the complaint. As a result, Millsike was unable to account for the property that the complainant said was missing, which was not in line with policy and caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

The complainant said that items were missing and damaged when he received his follow on property at HMP Millsike, and that the prison did not properly investigate or resolve his concerns. The investigation found that the prison failed to manage the complaint in line with policy, did not provide clear ownership or communication, and did not cooperate with IPCI’s enquiries, causing avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

A prisoner complained he was removed from his role as a Neurodiversity Peer Advocate at HMP Millsike in July 2025 without warning, review, or consideration of his neurodiversity needs. While staff later engaged with him, considered reasonable adjustments, and supported him into alternative roles, this was not done at the point of removal and was not communicated clearly or promptly. Although confidentiality and safety concerns provided a legitimate basis, the lack of timely explanation, documented equality consideration, and early support caused avoidable distress and undermined transparency. The prison’s failure to provide requested information to IPCI further limited scrutiny of the decision making.

A prisoner complained that their ACCT checks were not being completed correctly. The investigation found that on a small number of occasions the required number of checks per hour had not been completed. These errors were rare and were noted by staff at the time. Although the errors were limited, the prison acknowledged the importance of completing ACCT checks properly to ensure prisoners are kept safe, and agreed to reinforce this with staff at senior management level. The prisoner also complained that they had been unfairly and unsafely moved to a different wing. The investigation did not find that the decision to move was inappropriate. However, it found that the prison did not keep accurate records of meetings and discussions relating to the decision.

A prisoner complained that important documents sent to him at HMP Fosse Way could not be located. The parcel, which was sent by a friend using Royal Mail tracking under Rule 39, was recorded as delivered to the prison. The prison’s postal log confirmed that mail arrived, but said it was for another prisoner with the same name. As the sender was not a legal adviser or recognised organisation, the parcel may not have met the requirements for Rule 39 handling and may have been treated as unauthorised correspondence. While it was not possible to establish definitively what happened to the parcel, the investigation found that it is likely that the item delivered was the missing documents.

A prisoner complained that he did not have access to open air on multiple days over multiple months. Complaint responses stated that this was due to staffing issues and a restricted regime. The investigation found that the prison did not comply with national policy and that prisoners were not afforded the statutory minimum time in the open air for a prolonged period.

A prisoner complained that he had received a note from the censor’s department saying he was unable to receive pictures of children as he was subject to Public Protection Unit (PPU) restrictions. The relevant policy framework clearly sets out that such decisions on individual photographs must be made by the PPU. The reason for this is to guard against the routine censorship of all photographs, as some contacts may be approved. There was no evidence that the photographs had been shared with the PPU or been through the required assessment process as outlined in policy.

A prisoner complained that his stored property was missing following a transfer from HMP Nottingham to HMP Ranby.

A prisoner complained about missing property following his transfer from HMP Whitemoor to HMP Wakefield. Some property had been sent on after transfer, but it was unclear if some property remained behind.

The prisoner complained that an adjudication hearing was unfair because the adjudicator did not share the evidence he relied on to come to his decision – specifically, an unauthorised item (or a photo of it) and the BWVC footage which would have recorded the discovery of the unauthorised item.