Ask the Ombudsman: April 2019

FOI Request 231, dated 07/01/19:
In your 17-18 Annual Report, you state that there were seven complaints made to you about food which were upheld. Could you please provide me with a copy of the full complaint and your full response to that complaint. I accept that some details will have to be redacted from the documents to comply with S.40 of the FoI Act.

The Ombudsman answered:
After reviewing your request, we are withholding some information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Complaint investigation files contain personal information about living individuals which must be stored securely in line with the Data Protection Act. We consider that disclosing this information would constitute a breach of one or more principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 referred to in FOIA 2000.

However, we have provided anonymised summaries of the seven upheld complaints about food in 2017/18.

FOI231 – Upheld food complaints (2017/18)

Case 1: Complainant A contacted the PPO about not being provided with certain food items. Complainant A had noticed that various foods prescribed on their F35 – List of Medical Instructions, had been missing from their meals. After being contacted by the PPO, the prison agreed that the complainant’s F35 must be strictly adhered. The PPO did not take any further action.

Case 2: Complainant B contacted the PPO about cross-contamination of halal and non-halal food. The PPO found that the prison were not complying with the Catering Operating Manual and PSI 05/2016. The prison agreed to provide additional training and awareness to servery workers. The PPO recommended that the Catering Manager should write to prisoners about the actions they have and will take about cross-contamination of Halal and non-Halal food.

Case 3: Complainant C contacted the PPO about not being provided with Kosher food until their faith had been confirmed, and that they should be provided with two Kosher meals a day. Complainant C said the prison was discriminatory towards them by not allowing them to have a fully kosher diet. The PPO upheld the complaint that the prison should have provided two Kosher meals a day.

Case 4: Complainant D contacted the PPO about a reduction in the size of milk cartons. The PPO found that the commercially available size of milk had reduced, but had not been revised in the Catering Operating manual to take account of this. The PPO agreed with the Complainant that food portion sizes should be at least those set out in the manual, and made recommendations for HMPPS to address the difference between the current milk contract for the national prison estate, and the minimum portion size as set out in PSI 44/2010.

Case 5: Complainant E contacted the PPO about not receiving Kosher meals during and after Passover. The PPO upheld part of the complaint about provision of a Kosher meal during Passover. PSI 05/2016 is clear that during Passover, if requested, a Jewish prisoner, might be issued with two Kosher Passover meals per day throughout the festival. The PPO found that the prison’s actions were not complaint with the PSI. The PPO did not uphold part of the complaint about provision of a Kosher meal after Passover. Prison records state that Complainant E was no longer adhering to Jewish dietary laws. It was reasonable for the Prison to reconsider whether he should be receiving a second Kosher lunch meal.

Case 6: Complainant F contacted the PPO about the availability of food to meet his special dietary requirements caused by a health condition. The PPO partially upheld the complaint after finding that the complainant had occasionally been given inappropriate food.

Case 7: Complainant G contacted the PPO about the size of milk cartons. He wrote that the prison’s milk cartons were smaller than the size stated in the Prison Service Catering Manual. The PPO upheld the complaint and recommended that HMPPS should address the difference between the current milk contract for the prison estate, and the minimum portion size set out in PSI 44/2010