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.
PPO’s complaint investigation
14. Mr K says the PPO failed to properly investigate his complaint. He had asked the PPO to investigate concerns his carer had been prevented from bringing his food to him from the servery between 23 and 25 July 2023. He says this meant he went without food for three days. Mr K says the PPO relied on falsified information and disregarded two witness statements he provided.
15. To address Mr K’s concerns, we reviewed the complaint file from the PPO. We also reviewed the evidence the PPO relied upon to reach its decision. This includes Mr K’s C-Nomis entries dated between 20 and 30 July 2023, the two witness statements he submitted, and his canteen order for July 2023.
16. We also reviewed a copy of the PPO’s complaints handling policy in place at the time of Mr K’s complaint, as well as our UK government complaint standards. We consider both policies to be the most relevant to compare what should have happened in this case.
17. Sections 4 and 5 outline the complaints process. Section 4.2 outlines what matters the PPO can investigate. It can consider the merits of matters complained of as well as the procedures involved. It can investigate decisions and actions relating to the management, supervision, care and treatment of prisoners in custody, by prison staff, people acting as contractors of NOMS and members of the Independent Monitoring Boards.
18. Section 5.2 says all staff must cooperate fully with all requests from the PPO for information, material, or access to establishments and prisoners.
19. Section 5.3 says the PPO’s complaints investigators are likely to ask to see copies of the prisoner’s internal complaint and any related material. Establishment staff must provide any additional documents or information they consider relevant. This includes providing responses to any further enquiries by PPO staff, such as to examine files and copy documents.
20. Section 5.12 says the PPO may conclude any investigation in any way it sees most fit. This could include by local resolution, mediation, or a formal letter.
21. Section 5.15 says the final report may uphold a complaint in whole, in part, or may reject it. Where a formal report is to be issued, the PPO will send a draft to the relevant authority to allow it to draw attention to points of factual inaccuracy and/or confidential information, and to allow any identifiable staff subject to criticism an opportunity to make representations.
22. Section 5.17 says ‘where no recommendation has been made, the report is sent directly to the head of Briefing and Casework Unit who will copy it to all interested parties’.
23. Our UK government complaint standards says an effective complaints system ensures colleagues take a thorough, proportionate and balanced look into complaints. It says colleagues actively listen and demonstrate a clear understanding of what the main issues are for the service user and the outcomes they seek. Colleagues should look for ways they can resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity.
24. Our UK government complaint standards also say colleagues should make sure parties know how they will look into the issues, including what information they need, who they will speak to, who is responsible for providing the final response, and how this will be communicated. Organisations should publish a complaints procedure that meets the complaint standards.
25. Under ‘giving fair and accountable responses’, our UK government complaint standards says an effective complaint handling system enables colleagues to give a fair and balanced account of what happened and the conclusions reached. Colleagues should give a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts.
26. According to his C-Nomis case notes, a Prison Offender Manager (POM) met with Mr K as part of a planned supervision session on 24 July. We reviewed these notes to see if Mr K raised any concerns around being unable to access food, which had not been mentioned by the PPO in its investigation. When Mr K’s POM asked whether he had a carer, he stated he ‘has support from staff’.
27. A C-Nomis case note dated 27 July documents ‘discussed him not collecting meals – he stated he does not collect meals from servery as he does NOT eat of the servery – he does not trust the food off the servery. This has been going on some nine and a half months – he has food in his cell and prisoners have been seen going in and out with food – as [noticed] by wing staff also has a rather large canteen order this week to collect.’
28. Mr K’s canteen transactions show he purchased food items on the following days:
• 10 items of food and drink on 4 July 2023 • nine items of food and drink on 10 July 2023 • eight items of food and drink on 13 July 2023 • nine items of food and drink on 20 July 2023 • 16 items of food and drink on 26 July 2023.
29. In his complaint to the PPO, Mr K stated he had two witnesses who were prevented from collecting food for him. Mr K stated he could not eat for three days and only had access to water and Pepsi. He enclosed his Comp1 forms and responses.
30. The prison’s responses outlined the responsibilities of a wing carer. In this case, the carer was responsible for collecting Mr K’s meals daily should he be unable to do so himself. It also referenced the C-Nomis entry dated 27 July 2023 outlined above. The prison explained Mr K’s carer had collected the meals as required.
31. On 22 November, the PPO acknowledged Mr K’s complaint. The acknowledgement summarised the concerns Mr K had asked the PPO to look into and explained it would be able to investigate his concerns. We consider this is in line with section 4.2 of the PPO’s complaints handling policy and our UK government complaint standards. The investigator outlined clear understanding of Mr K’s main issues.
32. On 24 November, an investigator at the PPO emailed Mr K to acknowledge he had two statements from his carers in support of his complaint. The investigator requested Mr K either post them or request the prison’s business hub scan and email them across. The investigator emailed the prison’s business hub to make it aware of their request. The investigator also requested Mr K’s canteen purchases for July 2023, the names of the carers responsible for Mr K, and confirmation of his carers’ roles/requirements.
33. We consider this information request to be in line with section 5 of the PPO’s complaints handling policy and our UK government complaint standards. The investigator outlined what information they needed to reach a decision on Mr K’s complaint. This included a request for evidence Mr K wished to provide to support his concerns.
34. On 30 November, Mr K sent in his two supporting witness statements. One documented he had been asked to assist with a new arrival, Mr K, on 22 July. He collected Mr K’s dinner that day. Both statements noted they were prevented from collecting Mr K’s food for the following three days.
35. On 5 December, the investigator at the PPO chased the prison’s business hub for the witness statements. It responded the same day to advise it had not received a request for the statements to be scanned. We consider the chaser to be in line with our UK government complaint standards.
36. On 21 December, the investigator at the PPO documented they had received Mr K’s supporting witness statements. They noted ‘authenticity cannot be verified as typed and no signature’.
37. In its response to Mr K’s complaint, the PPO explained it had not upheld the complaint. It noted Mr K’s witness statements were typed, not handwritten, and only one was signed. It explained it was unable to verify the authenticity of the statements.
38. We asked the PPO for further information on why it felt it this was the case. This is because section 5.3 of its complaints handling policy says staff may subsequently need to make further enquiries with establishment staff or prisoners. We asked whether it could have done more to verify the authenticity of the statements.
39. The PPO told us its concern was not that the statements were typed, as it does not require handwritten statements. It explained the difficulty was the reliability of the statements. Specifically, one of the statements included an incorrect prison number belonging to another prisoner, was unsigned and was presented in a near identical format to the other.
40. Taken together, the PPO explained, these features raised understandable concerns about accuracy and authorship. The PPO offered reassurance it is independent and takes evidence submitted on face value. It would not, as a matter of course, take further steps to increase the evidential weight of such evidence.
41. The PPO explained the statements were considered, but when weighed against the contemporaneous evidence, they carried limited weight. The complaint responses, NOMIS entry, and canteen information all recorded Mr K’s meals were being collected for him, that food was visible in his cell at times when he said he was not eating, and that he had previously told staff he did not use the servery because he did not trust the food.
42. In its correspondence with us, the PPO acknowledged the brief case note did not reflect its fuller reasoning. It explained it will ensure future notes capture that rationale more clearly.
43. We consider the PPO’s reasoning to be in line with our UK government complaint standards. It has provided an explanation as to why it was unable to rely on Mr K’s witness statements.
44. We have not seen any indication the PPO failed to consider any of the evidence available. Where it was unable to rely on Mr K’s witness statements, it provided an explanation as to why this was the case. This explanation is in line with our UK government complaint standards. The accounts of what happened should be based on established facts. In this case, the investigator was unable to authenticate the statements as fact.
45. Overall, we consider the PPO acted in line with its own complaints handling policy and our UK government complaint standards in investigating and responding to Mr K’s complaint.
46. The evidence indicates the PPO showed understanding of Mr K’s complaint. It requested all available documents and considered these in a fair and proportionate way, We consider the complaint response is a fair and balanced account of what has happened, and it is reflective of the evidence available. This is in line with the relevant policy and standard.
47. We therefore cannot see any indications the PPO has got anything wrong in its complaint investigation. We propose to take no further action on Mr K’s complaint.