3. Mr D complains about how PPO investigated and addressed his complaint in September 2024, regarding a loss of his property at HMP A.
4. He says, as a result of this, he has had to write continuously to various organisations to find his property and get reimbursed. He has had to replace items at his own expense.
5. As an outcome he is seeking reimbursement of £857.90 for his lost property.
6. Mr D transferred from HMP A to HMP B in February 2024. On this transfer, he told us his property went missing.
7. Over the next two months, he went through the local complaints process to try and locate his belongings. In April, some of his property was found.
8. In May, he continued to complain locally and to the independent monitoring board (a group who monitor the treatment of prisoners). He complained to PPO in June.
9. It investigated and partly upheld his complaint in September. It recommended HMP A pay him £35 in full and final settlement for three missing items.
10. Mr D is concerned there are still additional items of property that are missing.
13. 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. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
14. When Mr D complained to PPO he provided a list of the belongings he said were missing, with a total of their value.
15. PPO contacted HMP A and HMP B to obtain Mr D’s property cards. It compared the lists on these cards with the list Mr D provided, to check for the items he said were missing.
16. It found three missing items that were on his property card from HMP A and contacted the prison to ask it to put this right, by offering compensation for these three items.
17. It explained to Mr D that the remaining items were not listed on a property card so it could not consider these due to a lack of documentary evidence.
18. The Prisoners property policy framework says: ‘In cases where the establishment is responsible for the loss or damage to the prisoner’s property, the prisoner must be fairly reimbursed and an apology given.’ This policy also provides guidance on how to value lost property.
19. The PSI says PPO can resolve a matter in whatever way it sees fit, including local resolution. Following its investigation, PPO contacted HMP A and requested it make a payment to Mr D in line with this guidance, which it agreed to do.
20. Our Principles of good administration say public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation and balance the evidence appropriately. We can see PPO obtained evidence from Mr D, and both prisons. It compared the evidence of missing property and when a discrepancy was found, it sought to put things right, by recommending compensation in line with the property policy framework.
21. We appreciate Mr D still does not have the property he says is missing and this will be distressing for him. Having considered the evidence available, we consider PPO acted in line with guidance in investigating Mr D’s complaint. We have seen no indications of failings. We have decided not to consider the complaint further.
1. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint about the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO). We are sorry to hear of the difficulties he has faced due to his lost property. We have carefully considered the evidence, and we have seen no indication the PPO did anything wrong in investigating his complaint.
2. We appreciate the time and effort it has taken for Mr D to seek help has been frustrating for him.