Complaint investigation summaries

A prisoner complained that after he was transferred from HMP Exeter to HMP Portland, some of his property went missing. Exeter said the property had been sent onto Portland, but the IPCI investigation found that this was not correct. The property was located and sent onto the prisoner – albeit 12 months after his transfer.

A prisoner complained that when he transferred from HMP Dartmoor to HMP Five Wells, a personal identity document had gone missing. Five Wells said that they had not received it and advised the prisoner should contact Dartmoor, despite the prison being closed. The IPCI investigation found that property in the same bag as the document had arrived at Five Wells and when we asked them to look again, the document was found.

A prisoner complained that staff refused to return property gifted to him by another prisoner and unfairly confiscated it from his cell by staff at HMP Swaleside. He also requested a copy of his cell clearance paperwork. After IPCI’s involvement the prisoner’s property card was checked and whilst it was established that the Governor had not approved a gift from another prisoner, we found that staff gave inconsistent advice to the prisoner concerning gift applications and that staff were unable to provide a copy of the cell clearance certificate.

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.