Complaint case studies

Here the Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, talks about some of the complaints he has investigated recently:

Mr B - a male prisoner’s complaint

Mr B complained that, as a wheelchair user, he was discriminated against through lack of access to activities available to other prisoners. In particular, he was concerned that he could not use the showers, and that his cell door was too narrow to allow wheelchair access, compromising his health and safety.

Mr B had been required to say in the morning if he wanted a shower in the evening. Due to staff shortages, there were times when he went without a shower for several days.

My investigation found that the prison had purchased a ramp to enable Mr B’s wheelchair to be taken into the shower area but the ramp did not fit the shower. Likewise, a special chair purchased for Mr B was the wrong size.

While the prison had made efforts to meet Mr B’s needs, I considered more could and should have been done.

I recommended that a new, smaller wheelchair should be provided. In addition, the investigation had uncovered a patchy, ill-informed and localised approach to meeting the needs of disabled prisoners with potential for ill-directed and inefficient use of resources.

I therefore also recommended that the Prison Service should review its policy and adopt a more strategic, national approach.

Ms L – a female prisoner’s complaint

Ms L complained that a male officer made a gesture that she found offensive as she felt it related to her hospital visit the day before. Ms L had been taken to an appointment at the gynaecology department at the local hospital, escorted by two officers.

My investigation found that it is standard practice in the Prison Service that, when staff are on escort duty, the lowest ranking officer is handcuffed to the prisoner.

In the case of Ms L, the lowest ranking officer was a male officer, while the more senior officer was female. Ms L was therefore escorted into the gynaecology department handcuffed to a male officer. She found this very uncomfortable but she explained that, as this was normal procedure, she did not complain at the time.

However, the following day when the male officer clapped at her she felt it was a reference to the clinic appointment and complained. The officer denied making any gesture relating to the appointment, but I was very concerned that female prisoners were being escorted to sensitive clinical appointments handcuffed to male officers.

The prison agreed this was an oversight and that tradition had taken over from common sense and decency. A Staff Information Notice was immediately issued stating that women prisoners under hospital escort for sensitive appointments must have a female officer handcuffed to them.

Mr R – a young offender’s complaint

Mr R, a juvenile being held in a Young Offender Institution (YOI) complained that he was being kept in his cell for upto 22 hours a day.

He said that education classes were frequently cancelled and claimed that the YOI was not complying with Prison Service Orders (PSOs).

The YOI's response was that Mr R was not the best behaved trainee but that he did have access to some sessions out of his cell. Mr R’s father wrote with his concerns, suggesting that confining young people to their rooms for long periods was not likely to induce compliant behaviour.

My investigation found that the Prison Service requires YOI's to provide juveniles with activities to promote self-responsibility and discipline, and to prevent re-offending. I found evidence that Mr R’s behaviour had indeed been unsettled and disruptive on occasion, and his association times were cut back because of this.

The YOI's Independent Monitoring Board had detailed concerns about staffing resources in their Annual Report, and noted that there had been problems with the education contracts. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons had also said that there was no focused work with the young people in Mr R’s wing, all of whom had committed very serious offences and were serving long sentences.

I was unable to establish whether or not Mr R was actually locked up for 22 hours a day, but I did find that education classes and association had been cancelled.

I recommended that the Prison Service and Youth Justice Board should review the treatment of juvenile prisoners in Mr R’s position and ensure that adequate resources are provided.

Mr W – a probation service complaint

Mr W complained that he was treated unfairly by staff in a hostel. He suggested that staff did not give him support and that he was singled out over his behaviour when other residents behaving in a similar manner were not dealt with.

He alleged that he was given inappropriate warnings and wrongly breached. Mr W said that taken together, his complaints amounted to discriminatory treatment because, unlike some other residents, he was not a sex offender.

My investigation found little evidence of staff engaging with Mr W but, by his own admission, he was not forthcoming to staff and it is clear that he was seen to be demanding and surly.

I believe that respect and engagement are two-way processes. While it behoves staff to maintain high standards of professionalism when dealing with difficult people, they also have the right to be treated courteously themselves. All available evidence indicated that Mr W was not an easy man to deal with and that he was sometimes perceived to be intimidating.

Staff had had to take him to task about his behaviour on various occasions. However, when two formal warnings were issued belatedly in quick succession, they were poorly worded and it was not clear what Mr W was being warned about.

I concluded that, although the breach was warranted, the incident leading to it was poorly handled by staff. Nevertheless, Mr W could have been in little doubt that his behaviour was unacceptable and I concluded that it was reasonable for staff to take a firm line.

I found no evidence of discriminatory treatment. Nevertheless, I found that Mr W’s complaint had been poorly handled by the Probation Area and I recommended that he should be given an apology. I also recommended greater clarity when formal warnings are given.