Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that his in possession and stored property had gone missing when he transferred from HMP Stocken. The IPCI investigation established that Stocken used a local, rather than the nationally prescribed version of the cell clearance certificate, which hampered the investigation. It was also clear that upon a subsequent transfer, all his property did not accompany him from HMP Leicester and there were items that could not be accounted for.

A prisoner complained that money from someone on his approved visitors list had been withheld. The IPCI investigation found that although prisons have a duty to investigate funds sent in from suspicious sources, there was no evidence this was the case here.

A prisoner complained that money he had been sent was wrongly withheld and disposed of by staff. The IPCI investigation established that the prisons local policies did not reflect the guidance in paragraph 14 of the finance manual about the provisions of returning cash to a sender, prior to donating to NACRO.

A prisoner complained about excessive force being used in a restraint. The IPCI investigation included a review of video footage which did not provide evidence to support the allegation. We determined, however, that the prison had failed to facilitate the prisoner contacting the police, despite the prison having a relevant process in line with the police referral agreement.

A prisoner complained that when she transferred from HMP Styal to HMP Drake Hall her property did not all arrive. She was not given the opportunity to pack her property before she left, and the prison did not do a cell clearance form when they cleared her cell. After IPCI’s involvement, the prisoner’s property was located, arriving at her new location two months later.

A prisoner complained that he had not received his stored property from HMP Thameside more than four months after his transfer to another establishment. This was contrary to the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework. The IPCI investigation found the prisoner’s property had not been sent on within the timescales required by the policy framework and the reasons for the delay were not considered to be exceptional.

A prisoner complained that staff had used PAVA against him on two occasions and that it was an unnecessary use of force. The IPCI investigation found on each occasion, staff were (on the balance of probabilities) justified in using PAVA, however we identified a number of concerns, including issues with the retention of CCTV and body worn video camera (BWVC) footage, completion of paperwork and governance and oversight around the use of force and PAVA.

A prisoner complained about not being able to access weekly prayers.

A prisoner complained he had not received a refund for the confiscated canteen he purchased for another prisoner. Whilst the IPCI investigation concluded the canteen had been appropriately confiscated, we were concerned that the prison could not provide an audit trail for the canteen once it had been confiscated.

A prisoner was unhappy with the lack of contact he was getting with his Keyworker. In response to the IPCI investigation, the prison acknowledged this issue and attributed it to staffing pressures.