Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that he was not paid on time after completing in-cell recycling activity at HMP Swaleside. Our IPCI investigation found this to be the case, due to delays in prisons staff confirming what work had been completed to trigger payments.

A prisoner complained that following a DST search, his property was damaged. The prison accepted liability and offered compensation in line with the local maximum amounts. The IPCI investigation found that the compensation was inadequate and confirmed that there is no authority for establishments to put in place local maximums for compensation.

A prisoner complained about inaccurate information in his OASys report. The IPCI investigation established that the OASys did include information taken from CPS documentation, which was not pertinent to his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO).

A young person complained about a restraint and full search. The investigation established the intervention was mostly well planned and delivered effectively, however upon relocation to the CSU, the young person was left without any clothing.

A prisoner complained that he wanted to change his keyworker as he was not receiving an adequate number of keywork sessions. The IPCI investigation established that although keyworkers are profiled to deliver 45-minute weekly sessions, this does not equate to 45 minutes with a prisoner. The prison was delivering monthly sessions, and this had been agreed with the Area Executive Director as part of an exceptional regime delivery plan and accepted that this was not acceptable in a steady state.

A young person complained that a safeguarding investigation, completed after a restraint, was not sufficient as it did not involve an interview with the main member of staff involved. The IPCI investigation established the restraint was reasonable and deemed the safeguarding investigation sufficient. However, as one statement was submitted late, it was not considered, and this gave the impression the investigation was not complete.

A prisoner complained that some of their property had not followed them on transfer. The IPCI investigation identified some inconsistencies in the cell clearance process at the prison, notably the current property cards were not referred to when the cell was cleared. However, the specific item the prisoner claimed as missing subsequently appeared on his In Possession property cards.

A prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Oakwood before his transfer to HMP Thorn Cross. After IPCI’s involvement the prisoner’s property card and delivery tracking information was reviewed. The prisoner’s mobile phone and other property was subsequently located at Thorn Cross but had not arrived from Oakwood within an acceptable time frame.

A prisoner complained that he was unable to access legal documents held in his stored property, despite being told by the prison this would be arranged. The IPCI investigation found the prisoner had been sent an electronic request for this to happen, minutes before the appointment, which staff had not passed on. There was also no evidence to suggest that new arrangements had been made for the prisoner to access his documents on a later date.

A prisoner complained about the conduct of a Supervising Officer (SO). During the IPCI investigation we encountered difficulties obtaining information required to inform our decision making. The investigation found that the officer had used inappropriate language and may have appeared intimidating.