PPO Complaint
16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.
17. We have seen evidence Mr D did include the general PPO and official complaints email addresses in September 2023 when he was attempting to raise his concerns with HMP Birmingham, before he received the final response. These emails were always addressed to the HMP Birmingham complaints email addresses. We have not seen evidence the PPO responded to these emails.
18. Due to the number of organisations addressed in the email of complaint, we understand it may have been unclear to the PPO whether this complaint was directly for them, or if they were being copied into a complaint to another organisation.
19. The PPO have confirmed the first email they have on file related to Mr D’s complaint was sent in December 2024, where he stated he had received a final response and was unhappy with it.
20. The PPO stated the complaint was out of time, as it has not been brought within 3 months of the final response from HMP Birmingham, or within 12 months of the original incidents.
21. The PPO terms of reference mean the PPO is unable to investigate complaints unless the following criteria are met: • The complainant has received a reply from the organisation or where the organisation has not provided a final response within 30 working days of raising the complaint • The complaint is submitted within 3 calendar months of receiving a substantive response from the organisation • The complaint is submitted within 12 months of the complainant knowing they have something to complaint about • The complainant is currently a prisoner.
22. The PPO does have some discretion it its terms of reference for considering delays in bringing complaints, stating the reasons for the delay must be considered reasonable by the PPO to investigate the issues.
23. We can see Mr D did provide his reasons for the delay in both the solicitors letter and his emails when asking the PPO to investigate his complaint. We have not seen the PPO documented a consideration of these reasons or referred to them when it decided the complaint was out of time. We cannot say for certain it did not consider the reasons.
24. Ultimately, no matter when Mr D brought the complaint or what consideration the PPO had of his reasons for the delay, the PPO would not have been able to investigate as Mr D has not been a prisoner in a UK prison since August 2022.
25. We consider the PPO has not done anything wrong in declining to investigate this complaint, as even if it was to use its discretion on the time limit, the complaint would still not be in remit.
26. We therefore will not be taking further action on this part of the complaint.
HMPPS Complaint
27. When a person is no longer in prison and wants to raise a complaint, the PHSO can sometimes look at this.
28. For us to investigate a complaint, section 6 of the Parliamentary Commissioners Act says a person usually needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.
29. As Mr D was aware of the issues he was complaining about by the end of August 2022, for his complaint to be within our time limit he needed to complain to his MP by August 2023.
30. We can see the original complaint spans from September 2021 to August 2022. Mr D said he first raised these issues with HMP Birmingham in 2022 but did not get a response. Mr D did receive a response from HMP Birmingham in December 2023 after his mental health solicitor sent a letter.
31. Mr D did not seemingly then take any action on this complaint until December 2024 when he raised the complaint with the PPO. Mr D then brought his complaint to his MP in February 2025 after the PPO declined to investigate. This means that Mr D’s complaint is outside our time limit by around 18 months.
32. We can see Mr D and his solicitor have explained in the letter from 2023 Mr D was unable to raise the complaint fully before as he has been sectioned since September 2022. Mr D has also told us he has remained sectioned which has prevented him from accessing the appropriate complaint route.
33. We do understand these will have been barriers which prevented Mr D from raising the complaint earlier, however we have to consider the specific delays.
34. Mr D, with the help of a solicitor, was able to raise his complaint to HMP Birmingham in November 2023. After receiving a response the next month, there was no action on the complaint for 12 months. We appreciate Mr D’s mental health and section status will have caused some barriers, however we cannot consider this 12 month period of inaction to be reasonable. This is because he did have access to support to make his complaint sooner, as evidenced by the supportive letter from his mental health solicitor.
35. When Mr D raised the complaint with his MP in February 2025, 14 months had passed since he received a response from HMP Birmingham, and 3 years and 5 months had passed since the original incidents.
36. Given the amount of time that had passed, it is unlikely we would be able to find sufficient evidence or witness statements to be able to properly investigate Mr D’s complaint.
37. We appreciate this decision will likely be disappointing for Mr D and we are sorry to hear he had a very difficult experience whilst in prison. We thank him for bringing this complaint and hope our statement reassures him we have fully considered whether we are able to investigate his concerns.