Home Office

3. Mr X complains about the service provided by a Home Office IRC in 2024. Specifically, he says:

• Whilst being detained at the IRC his belongings were given to another resident in error, and he never regained the lost items.

• To put things right the Home Office offered Mr X financial compensation of £250, which he says is not enough to cover the cost of the lost property.

4. Mr X says the incident has caused him anxiety, stress and depression.

5. As an outcome of his complaint Mr X is seeking compensation for the value of the lost property, which he says was worth £1,500.

6. In 2024 Mr X was detained at an IRC which was managed by a Home Office third-party detention service. Mr X's personal belongings, consisting of three bags, were stored in the reception area of the IRC. Each bag was labelled with a serial number.

7. Mr X believed that another resident was wearing clothing from one of his bags. As a result, he requested that all his belongings be returned to him so that he could pack them in preparation for his release. When staff at the IRC actioned this request, they informed him that one of his bags, which he says contained his clothing, was missing. Mr X states that staff were unable to locate the missing bag and that the items were not returned to him.

8. Mr X complained to the IRC about the loss of his property. In response, he was offered £250 in compensation.

9. Mr X was unhappy with the amount offered, stating that it did not reflect the full value of the lost clothing. He therefore escalated his complaint to the Independent Examiner of Complaints (IEC). The IEC reviewed the complaint as the next stage in the complaints process after the Home Office provided its final response.

10. The outcome of the IEC investigation was that it was unable to reach a finding due to insufficient evidence. It also concluded that the amount of compensation offered was appropriate. Mr X then brought his complaint to us.

13. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether the organisation has acted in line with applicable guidelines and standards of service. If it has not, we consider if there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we can see the Home Office detention service did not always act in line with applicable guidelines and standards, but that it has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr X.

14. We can see from the Home Office’s complaint response that it confirmed Mr X’s belongings had been given to another resident in error and that they appeared to have been returned to reception a few days before his release. The Home Office accepted Mr X’s complaint as valid, saying it was supported by evidence.

15. The IEC report stated that it found no evidence to confirm any of the above events and that the IRC had advised there were no records of these incidents taking place. The IEC also noted that the IRC was unable to confirm whether Mr X had received the missing items or not. Due to the lack of available evidence, the IEC was unable to reach a finding. However, it recommended that the Home Office proceed with the offer of financial compensation, although it was unable to understand the basis for the amount offered.

16. We can see from the Home Office DSO guidelines referred to in our ‘evidence’ section that staff must record items of property held in store on the detained individual’s property record card, which individuals sign in accordance with legislation. It says an inventory of all property must be recorded and items which the reception officer or detained individual deems to be of sentimental value should be treated as valuable items.

17. We understand that whilst the DSO guidelines require an inventory of items, it does not specifically require officers to log each bagged item. Instead, it says ‘all property must be recorded’. This means that while each individual item does not have to be recorded, the bag itself and its movement must be logged.

18. The IRC has provided evidence in the form of a property report, which confirms that Mr X’s bags were checked into storage. In its complaint response, the IRC also accepted that Mr X’s complaint was justified and that some of his clothing appeared to have been given to another resident in error.

19. On the balance of probabilities, we can conclude that Mr X’s belongings were moved; however, the IRC was unable to provide evidence confirming where or when this occurred. Therefore, we consider that the IRC failed to act in accordance with the DSO guidelines, as it did not maintain records showing where and when Mr X’s belongings were moved.

20. Our Central Government Complaint Standards referred to in our ‘evidence’ section say organisations should identify instances where things have gone wrong, or where its services have had an unfair impact, and take responsibility for these. It may be appropriate for organisations to consider offering remedies which could be solely, or a combination of, an apology, explanation, remedial action, improvement to systems or procedures, or financial payments. In this case, the Home Office IRC apologised and provided a financial remedy.

21. Although the IRC was unable to provide further information about how the error occurred, it acknowledged that something had gone wrong and, as a way of putting things right, offered Mr X a consolatory payment of £250 for the missing items.

22. We recognise that Mr X is dissatisfied with the amount offered, as he considers that it does not reflect the value of the missing items and the impact of losing his personal belongings, including those that he says were of sentimental value. We appreciate that it would have been frustrating for Mr X not to have received all of his property before his release.

23. We have not been provided with sufficient evidence to establish what items were missing or to determine their value. Mr X has also been unable to provide evidence to support the total value claimed. Therefore, we cannot reach any view that Mr X has lost out on £1,500 worth of property as a result of the error, nor that the Home Office should increase its payment to that amount. What we can say is that the error clearly caused Mr X some frustration and distress.

24. In considering Mr X’s case, we have also referred to our own Guidance on Financial Remedy. The amount of redress paid by the Home Office is in line with our severity of injustice scale, which is used to determine an appropriate level of payment based on the severity of the impact the error has had on the individual. Having considered the impact we can see the IRC’s errors caused to Mr X, as summarised above, we can see £250 is appropriate to put right that impact, and it is in line with remedies we have recommended in similar cases of injustice.

25. For the reasons above, we consider the Home Office has provided an appropriate remedy to put right the impact its mistakes had. We will therefore take no further action.

26. We appreciate this has been a stressful and difficult experience for Mr X, and so we hope we have explained the consideration we have given in reaching our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it. We would like to thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about the Home Office. Mr X says his property was mis-placed whilst he was detained at an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in 2024. He says the Home Office detention service running the IRC acknowledged the failings; however, it did not pay him sufficient financial remedy. We recognise the stress and worry these events would have caused Mr X.

2. After carefully considering the evidence available to us, we have found indications that the Home Office detention service made errors in handling Mr X’s property. However, we consider it has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr X. As such, we have decided to take no further action. We explain the reasons for our decision below.