Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Lancaster Farms
Complaint category:
Visits, calls & letters
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained about the handling of Rule 39 mail by staff in HMP Lancaster Farms. The IPCI investigation found that the local policy for handling incoming Rule 39 and confidential access mail was not in line with national policy.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI recommended that the prison apologise to the prisoner for the incorrect handling of his Rule 39 mail and to ensure prison staff followed the national guidance and Prison Rules when handling this type of mail. IPCI also recommended that HMPPS inform them of any problems raised by prisons across the estate about the barcode system and what action they are taking to address these.
Upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Wymott
Complaint category:
Visits, calls & letters
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that the prison had not delivered him the outcome of his parole hearing in the timescale stipulated in line with national policy. This was exacerbated when the prison did not send his appeal paperwork to the correct email address and this all led to his appeal being rejected by the Parole Board as it was outside the ‘reconsideration period’.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended that the prison apologise to the prisoner and provide IPCI with evidence that the procedures around handing Parole Board decisions and subsequent appeals were reviewed. We asked them to take action to ensure that staff understood how to process them correctly, to prevent issues such as this from happening again.
Upheld complaint against the Governor at HMP Channings Wood
Complaint category:
Security
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that he was made to go through the body scanner when there was no security intelligence to suggest he posed a security risk. The IPCI investigation identified that incoming prisoners were scanned routinely which the prison claimed was to maintain the safety and security of the prison and prisoners. This is contrary to national policy and the prison were unable to provide evidence of any specific security intelligence or a reasonable suspicion to justify scanning for this prisoner.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended the prison apologise to the prisoner, for scanning him outside the scope of national policy, that they amend their Local Searching Policy to reflect national policy and provide IPCI with the following three months’ Security Minutes to demonstrate that the relevant discussions relating to individuals and cohorts to be scanned had happened and been recorded.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Five Wells
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that his mattress was not fit for purpose and that he did not have a noticeboard in his cell at HMP Five Wells.
Recommendations/outcome:
Following the IPCI investigation, the prison provided the prisoner with a replacement mattress and installed a noticeboard in his cell. The prison also apologised to the prisoner for the delay in addressing these issues. We hold the view that this complaint should clearly have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Norwich
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that during a transfer from Norwich to another prison, a large amount of his property did not transfer with him and was lost. We found that Norwich did not check the prisoner’s property against his property records for any discrepancies before he left their prison, as is required by the national policy. It was confirmed that the missing property had been held In Possession prior to transfer.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended that the Governor of HMP Norwich apologised to the prisoner, provide compensation, and took action to ensure staff were aware of the requirements of the national policy. All recommendations were accepted and implemented.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Lowdham Grange
Complaint category:
Adjudication & IEP
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that they were downgraded to the basic level of the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme unfairly. The prison did not provide the IPCI investigator with the IEP review documentation. We found no evidence that staff gave the prisoner the opportunity to make their case in the review process nor that they fed back to the prisoner following the review of their IEP level.
Recommendations/outcome:
We considered the prison were compliant with policy when downgrading the prisoner to basic level for a serious incident (and reviewing this within seven days). We however were concerned about the absence of documentation regarding the prisoner participating in his review and being given feedback from staff, so we considered the prison did not adequately implement the policy in this respect. We sent a copy of our findings to the prison so they could take remedial action to avoid similar situations arising.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wormwood Scrubs
Complaint category:
Staff behaviour
Month investigation completed:
March
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that they were told to remove an item of religious headwear and were assaulted by a staff member. The IPCI investigation was found no evidence to indicate that an assault had taken place. The prison confirmed that there had been a verbal altercation after which the prisoner was guided back to their cell.
Recommendations/outcome:
We were concerned that the prison had not retained the body worn video camera footage of the incident despite the prisoner complaining about it. We also considered that they did not exhaust all efforts to identify the member of staff who had issued the instruction to the prisoner to remove their religious headwear. These matters were brought to the attention of the Governor so they could take remedial action to prevent any similar occurrences.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP/YOI Feltham (B side)
Complaint category:
Categorisation, progression & release preparation
Month investigation completed:
February
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner on the adult side of Feltham (B) complained about a delay to his recategorisation. The IPCI investigation established that there had been delays to his transfer to line up with his eligibility for Temporary Presumptive Recategorisation Scheme (TPRS).
Recommendations/outcome:
Whilst there was no evidence he was specifically disadvantaged by this, we wrote to the Governor of Feltham specifically outlining our concerns that delays to transfers, or prioritisation of one recategorisation route, can give the perception to prisoners that the system is being managed to their disadvantage.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Long Lartin
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
February
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that staff had wrongly disposed of his Xbox. The IPCI investigation established that as his door could not be locked, staff advised him to place his Xbox in the cell of a friend. This was then removed by staff as it was deemed unauthorised.
Recommendations/outcome:
We upheld the complaint and asked that he be compensated for wrongful disposal of the property.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Isle of Wight
Complaint category:
Categorisation, progression & release preparation
Month investigation completed:
February
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained about the failure of the prison to have them recategorised to open conditions. The IPCI investigation established that staff had correctly identified outstanding risk factors, and the decision was reasonable. However, there was evidence to suggest the prisoner had wrongly been given the impression he was likely to be recategorised to D.
Recommendations/outcome:
We partially upheld the complaint on the basis that the prisoner had been given the wrong impression regarding his progression and directly discussed the case with the relevant Head of the OMU.
