Complaint investigation summaries

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.

A young person complained that their relative was removed from a visit and banned for an excessive period. The IPCI investigation included reviewing the video evidence and interviewing the young person. We had concerns about the way the incident was managed and concluded the ban imposed on the relative was excessive and not handled correctly.

A young person complained that their jumper was wrongly destroyed without them being consulted on the disposal. The IPCI investigation established that following an incident of violence, the jumper was covered in glass and blood, as such staff disposed of this item as it might have been hazardous to store or handle. We found though that it was not reasonable to do so without first consulting the owner.

A prisoner complained that his in possession and stored property had gone missing when he transferred from HMP Stocken. The IPCI investigation established that Stocken used a local, rather than the nationally prescribed version of the cell clearance certificate, which hampered the investigation. It was also clear that upon a subsequent transfer, all his property did not accompany him from HMP Leicester and there were items that could not be accounted for.

A prisoner complained that money from someone on his approved visitors list had been withheld. The IPCI investigation found that although prisons have a duty to investigate funds sent in from suspicious sources, there was no evidence this was the case here.

A prisoner complained that money he had been sent was wrongly withheld and disposed of by staff. The IPCI investigation established that the prisons local policies did not reflect the guidance in paragraph 14 of the finance manual about the provisions of returning cash to a sender, prior to donating to NACRO.

A prisoner complained about excessive force being used in a restraint. The IPCI investigation included a review of video footage which did not provide evidence to support the allegation. We determined, however, that the prison had failed to facilitate the prisoner contacting the police, despite the prison having a relevant process in line with the police referral agreement.

A prisoner complained that when she transferred from HMP Styal to HMP Drake Hall her property did not all arrive. She was not given the opportunity to pack her property before she left, and the prison did not do a cell clearance form when they cleared her cell. After IPCI’s involvement, the prisoner’s property was located, arriving at her new location two months later.

A prisoner complained that he had not received his stored property from HMP Thameside more than four months after his transfer to another establishment. This was contrary to the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework. The IPCI investigation found the prisoner’s property had not been sent on within the timescales required by the policy framework and the reasons for the delay were not considered to be exceptional.

A prisoner complained that staff had used PAVA against him on two occasions and that it was an unnecessary use of force. The IPCI investigation found on each occasion, staff were (on the balance of probabilities) justified in using PAVA, however we identified a number of concerns, including issues with the retention of CCTV and body worn video camera (BWVC) footage, completion of paperwork and governance and oversight around the use of force and PAVA.