Complaint investigation summaries

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.

A prisoner requested a box of their property be returned to them at Full Sutton from the overflow storage site at Branston; however, the box could not be located. The prison explained that the box had originally been sent, and they were not liable for its current whereabouts. IPCI corresponded with Branston directly and located the missing box.

A prisoner complained that following a transfer from HMP Wandsworth to another prison, their property did not arrive. Initially, Wandsworth stated that the property was taken by prison bus to the new establishment, however there was no evidence of the property ever being received there. IPCI asked Wandsworth to conduct a search for the property, and this resulted in it being located at Wandsworth.

A prisoner complained that he wanted a negative IEP warning rescinded as he was not aware of the warning, and he was not provided with the paperwork. The prison had not rescinded the warning as they believed that the correct process had been followed. The IPCI investigation found that the prison had not been policy compliant when issuing the IEP warning as it had been recorded incorrectly on NOMIS, as a general entry relating to negative behaviour.

A prisoner complained about breaches of the Incentive and Earned Privileges (IEP) policy at HMP Wakefield. The IPCI investigation found that staff were not always accurately recording downgrades and subsequent reviews, with procedural mistakes having been rectified on more than one occasion.

A prisoner complained that he had been subject to an unlawful Use of Force (UoF) when he had refused to comply with an order for him to return to his cell. He also complained about the prison’s lack of compliance with the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework and the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework in relation to the incident. The IPCI Investigation found that the restraint carried out was not proportionate to the threat posed by the prisoner. We found several areas of concern in how the restraint was conducted and supervised.

A prisoner complained that he had been engaging with a partnership agency for months to help him get access to an Open University (OU) course. The prisoner was told several months later that his application for the course had not been received and that another application was necessary to get funding for the OU course. As a result, the prisoner was unable to enrol onto the OU course for its start date. The IPCI Investigation found that there had been a delay in processing his application due to poor communication between the partnership agency and the prison.