Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained that she had not been able to see her father before he passed away. The prison acknowledged during the complaint investigation that there had been communication issues which meant the prisoner’s request for ROTL was not processed in a timely manner.

The prisoner complained about the amount of compensation offered for property lost when staff in HMP Lindholme cleared his cell.

The prisoner complained about the refusal of staff in HMP Lindholme to disclose body worn video camera footage to him following an incident in April 2024.

The prisoner complained he was placed on ‘no 1 to 1 contact with staff' restriction and wasn’t informed of this. He claimed he only found out about this when he transferred to HMP Full Sutton. The IPCI investigation established that while at Parc his behaviour warranted the restriction, and it was a decision staff were entitled to make. However, this should have been communicated to him and there was no evidence that it had been.

The prisoner complained that he was not allowed access to a laptop. Our investigation established that initially there had been a security marker placed on his notes to indicate this was not allowed, but this was applied in error. After a lengthy period, the prison agreed to remove this, apologise for the error and placed him on a waiting list for a laptop.

The prisoner complained that a number of items of property went missing on transfer from HMP Onley. The IPCI investigation established that there was a clear failure in properly maintaining accurate records of his property.

The prisoner complained he was allocated to unsuitable work conditions and staff did not take account of his health conditions. During the IPCI investigation it became apparent that he was able to work, but that clearer guidance on what reasonable adjustments might be necessary were not recorded.

The prisoner complained he was assaulted by staff while being relocated from the segregation unit, following an adjudication. We partially upheld the complaint on the basis that we felt more could be done to resolve the situation before force was instigated.

The prisoner complained about the length of time taken to process his ROTL application to attend his mother’s funeral. The IPCI investigation found that the funeral took place quickly after death and given steps necessary to approve ROTL for a prisoner in the LTHSE, the delay was not unreasonable. However, we were concerned the prison could not supply us with details of how far the application had progressed prior to the funeral date in order that we might better understand if there were grounds for refusal, or if it was treated urgently.

The prisoner complained about the finding of guilt at an adjudication. The IPCI investigation established there were errors with the paperwork, and that only one of the witnesses, requested, was called and there was no reference to the missing witness the record of hearing. This is not policy compliant as adjudicators should consider requests for witnesses, and if evidence is heard from them, those charged should be allowed to question them.