Prisons and Probation Ombudsman

4. Mr U complains about the PPO’s investigation of his complaint. In particular, he says its investigation was inadequate, it did not address all his concerns and it did not contact him during its investigation.

5. Due to this, he says he has experienced significant frustration and distress.

6. As a result of complaining to us, he is seeking acknowledgement of failings, an apology, service improvements and financial redress.

7. This brief background is only intended to place the key events in context, not to provide a full account of everything that happened.

8. Mr U had served a fifteen-year sentence in prison. In 2010, he was released from prison, into a probation hostel. He remained there for approximately eighteen months until he travelled abroad.

9. In 2018, Mr U returned to the UK and was arrested for breaching his license conditions. He was told his prison sentence had been recalculated from fifteen to 20 years.

10. In February 2023, the probation service requested Mr U’s recall to prison because it said he posed an immediate high risk to the public, due to allegations of an offence. Mr U remained in prison until July 2024.

11. In July 2024, Mr U says he was placed in accommodation far away from his home area and was required to attend probation appointments.

12. On 11 September Mr U complained to HMPPS.

13. On 19 December, the complaints process with HMPPS finalised. It directed him to PPO if he remained dissatisfied.

14. On 3 February 2025, Mr U complained to the PPO.

15. On 6 March, Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations (IPCI, part of PPO) sent a letter to Mr U acknowledging his complaint.

16. On 21 March, the PPO responded to Mr U’s complaint. It decided to not uphold it.

19. When we consider 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.

20. Mr U is dissatisfied with HMPPS and the PPO’s complaint responses. He feels both organisations missed issues he raised and did not contact him to discuss his complaint.

21. The PPO carries out independent investigations into deaths and complaints in custody. The detailed role and responsibilities of the PPO are set out in his office’s Terms of Reference (the TOR). The PPO has two main duties: • to investigate complaints made by prisoners, young people in detention (prisons and secure training centres), offenders under probation supervision and immigration detainees • to investigate deaths of prisoners, young people in detention, approved premises’ residents, and immigration detainees due to any cause, including any apparent suicides and natural causes.

22. The purpose of these investigations is to understand what happened, to correct injustices and to identify learning for the organisations whose actions it oversees. This is so the PPO makes a significant contribution to safer, fairer custody and offender supervision.

23. It is the role of the PPO, as set out in the TOR, to investigate HMPPS’s response to complaints. As such, it is for the PPO investigator to determine how to conduct its investigations.

24. In the PPO’s response letter dated 6 March 2025, it explained it formed a panel to consider Mr U’s appeal. The purpose of the appeal is not to reinvestigate his original complaint. Instead, it is to determine if the conclusions of the complaint investigation were reasonable.

25. Within the response, it explained why it decided to not uphold his complaint. It explained it was satisfied HMPPS conducted a thorough investigation and addressed all the issues Mr U raised.

26. Our role is to ensure that PPO has conducted an appropriate investigation into the concerns raised about HMPPS. We have carefully reviewed this, and we are satisfied it acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration. This says public bodies should be open and honest when accounting for their decisions and actions.

27. The PPO provided a clear explanation for its decision. We can see during its investigation it reviewed several documents and sources of information, to assess if the probation service properly considered Mr U’s complaint. This included his emails of complaint, the outcome letters from probation officers, and probation case records. It also referred to the relevant standards and policies to support its decision.

28. Mr U had raised to the PPO he received no reimbursement for his bus travel (which HMPPS had agreed to do). The PPO contacted the probation service complaints team, who advised Mr U had not yet supplied his bank details to them. PPO explained to Mr U, he should email the probation complaints team as advised within its letter.

29. We consider PPO clearly explained to Mr U what he needed to do, to receive the reimbursement for his travel costs. Mr U explained PPO did not look into his complaint about the probation officers. We can see within PPO’s response it explained it is not for it to reinvestigate the original complaint. Instead, it is for it to determine if the probation service’s conclusions were reasonable.

30. We can see the PPO outlined why it decided to not uphold his complaint. It explained why it felt HMPPS had properly considered his complaint, as HMPPS had addressed issues Mr U raised about the probation officers.

31. We understand there is no requirement in PPO’s process, to always contact a complainant to clarify their concerns. That is a matter for the organisation’s own discretion. We look at whether, before coming to a decision, the organisation has followed a reasonable decision-making process. By this we mean looking at whether it has taken account of all relevant considerations and taken steps to balance evidence appropriately in line with our Principles of Good Administration.

32. The PPO considered that it had gathered enough information from the correspondence it received from Mr U to fully understand his concerns. Whilst we can understand why Mr U may have been reassured by a conversation with the PPO, we have seen nothing to suggest this would have added to the information it had received already.

33. We should add that, whilst we expect organisations to act fairly, we also expect them to act proportionately. This is because we expect organisations to bear in mind their responsibility to properly protect public funds.

34. In this case, the PPO deemed it proportionate to investigate Mr U’s complaint without the need to contact him. This was because it decided it had sufficient information to proceed. We do not think this is unreasonable.

35. We understand that this has been distressing for Mr U and we are sorry to hear of the difficult time he has experienced in pursuing his complaint. We have seen no indication anything went wrong in the PPO’s handling of his complaint, so will take no further action. We hope he is reassured by our independent consideration of his concerns.

1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO). Having done so, we have seen no indication the PPO made any mistakes in its handling of his complaint. This means we will take no further action.

2. In our view, the PPO reached is decision on HM Prison and Probation Service’s (HMPPS) own handling of the complaint in line with applicable policies and guidance. It seems to have based its decision on the evidence available to it.

3. We explain below how we considered Mr U’s complaint and reached our decision in this case.