Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Lincoln
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that his property had been lost by HMP Lincoln. During the course of the IPCI investigation the prison accepted they had not completed the correct cell clearance process and offered compensation for the items the prisoner lost.
Recommendations/outcome:
We agreed that the compensation offered accurately reflected a reasonable cost for replacement of the items.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Featherstone
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that his property had been lost by HMP Featherstone on transfer to Stoke Heath. The IPCI investigation established that his property was not listed on the PER, and instead been sent on to his new establishment by courier. There was no evidence of what had been sent on or any other way to establish what had been sent or arrived.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended that the prisoner receive compensation based on what he reasonably had in possession prior to the transfer and which was not subsequently listed as arriving at the new establishment.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Swaleside
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that they did not receive the meals they ordered from the menu.
Recommendations/outcome:
The prison discussed the prisoners dietary requirements with the kitchen staff to ensure that he received meals that met his requirements and confirmed they would monitor the situation going forward.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Lewes
Complaint category:
Staff behaviour
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained he had been bullied, harassed and victimised by a member of staff and that his cell bell was not answered within the correct timeframe. While there was no evidence to support allegations of bullying, harassment and victimisation, the investigation found grounds to uphold the complaint in relation to the cell bell not being answered.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI had made recommendations to resolve the issue with cell bells at HMP Lewes in another case report, issued in parallel to this case report.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Lewes
Complaint category:
Administration
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained he had not had access to a GP while in the Care & Separation Unit (CSU) in line with the requirements of HMPPS policy.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI partially upheld the complaint but did not make recommendations because the prison had since accepted its failings and taken steps to rectify the situation.
Upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Wakefield
Complaint category:
Visits, calls & letters
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that his mail had gone missing and that this constituted a data breach. The prison was not able to provide any evidence as to whether the mail had been received or not, as they did not have a system in place for prisoners to sign to confirm receipt of their mail.
Recommendations/outcome:
The complaint was upheld because of the lack of evidence provided by the prison. However, the prison has since amended its procedures to avoid this issue happening again in future.
Upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Wakefield
Complaint category:
Visits, calls & letters
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that he had not received his mail on several occasions. The prison was not able to provide any evidence as to whether the mail had been received by the prisoner or not, as they did not have a system in place for prisoners to sign to confirm receipt of their mail.
Recommendations/outcome:
The complaint was upheld because of the lack of evidence provided by the prison. However, the prison has since amended its procedures to avoid this issue happening again in future.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wymott
Complaint category:
Administration
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that staff at HMP Wymott were opening his Rule 39/confidential access mail, delaying issuing it to him, and had not responded to his complaint. IPCI found that the prison had followed policy on the opening of Rule 39/confidential access mail, but not the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework.
Recommendations/outcome:
We wrote to the Governor and drew their attention to how the prisoner’s complaint had been mishandled to ensure complaints are adequately replied to in future. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.
Upheld complaint against the Director of HMP Doncaster
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained that HMP Doncaster had lost some of his property after he had to transfer without it. The prisoner was initially told that Doncaster had no property for him, but when they carried out a search as part of the investigation some additional property was found. This property was subsequently sent to the prisoner.
Recommendations/outcome:
No formal recommendations required as the property was found and delivered to the prisoner’s current establishment. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.
Partially upheld complaint against the Director of HMP Oakwood
Complaint category:
Administration
Month investigation completed:
May
Year investigation completed:
2024
The prisoner complained about the way his confidential access complaints were handled. The Deputy Director had rejected the complaints, explaining that they should be re-directed through the prison’s normal complaints procedure, having not met the confidential access criteria. The prisoner felt that the prison wanted to deter him from complaining, and was unhappy that the Deputy Director had responded, despite being the subject of the complaint.
Recommendations/outcome:
As the Deputy Director was the subject of the complaint, another senior manager should have responded to it. We upheld this particular element of the complaint. We did not make a recommendation, satisfied that this was an oversight and was unlikely to happen again. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by HMPPS without reference to IPCI.
