Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained about a body search conducted in October 2023. He was concerned that his intimate body parts were captured on the body worn video camera (BWVC) footage.

The prisoner complained about the actions of a named member of staff, who he felt was bullying him. The IPCI investigation established that the prison had taken the matter seriously and investigated it. In our investigation we found evidence of some staff behaviour which was unprofessional, but this did not meet the threshold for an investigation under the relevant policy.

The prisoner complained that his progression was delayed due to not having an up-to-date sentence plan and OASys. The IPCI investigation established that there were significant delays in these documents being completed, which would have resulted in a delay to him being recategorised down, if eligible.

The prisoner complained that having been granted category D conditions, the decision was quickly reversed when further information emerged. The IPCI investigation established that the decision was made before some further important information was identified

The prisoner complained that ‘follow on’ property from HMP Leeds failed to arrive. The IPCI investigation established that prior to transfer the prisoner packed his property, but that the contents had not been checked against the property cards to ensure what the bags contained. This was in breach of policy.

The prisoner complained about damage to his stereo when he transferred between Ranby and Bullingdon. He initially complained to Geo Amey who investigated and did not uphold his complaint. Neither Ranby or Bullingdon investigated the matter, neither demonstrated good complaint handling practice, or adherence to the requirements of the property framework to audit the property.

The prisoner complained about damage to correspondence sent in under r39 which had been damaged as part of security screening practices. The IPCI investigation established there was no clear guidance in the prison on how mail should be tested, which needed to be addressed.

The prisoner complained about damage to books sent in which had been pierced several times as part of security screening practices. The investigation established there was no clear guidance in the prison on how mail should be tested.

The prisoner complained about the delay in completing his Offender Assessment System risk assessment report and sentence plan while he was at HMP Oakwood. We partially upheld the complaint due to the report being completed more than seven months after sentencing (the target is ten weeks).

The prisoner complained that some of his property had gone missing following his segregation at Swaleside. The investigation found that after the prisoner assaulted an officer, including throwing bodily fluids at him, the cell was found to have excrement and bodily fluids in it. Any contaminated property was disposed of. However, the property cards were not updated to reflect this.