Standards at Tinsley House immigration removal centre slipped as it took on a needier group of detainees, the prison inspectorate found.
The report, published in September 2026, followed an inspection that ended in July 2026. Serco runs the centre, which sits next to Gatwick airport and holds men facing removal from the UK.
Inspectors judged it reasonably safe and decent overall. However, they lowered its grade for respect, mainly because health care had declined and the accommodation had worsened.
The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, said the inspectorate would likely return within the next year for an independent review of progress. He said inspectors would “expect to see the deterioration halted”.
A changing population
The centre’s role had shifted. Many detainees were now held under the UK-France one-in, one-out arrangement for returns. Most had very recently crossed the Channel on small boats.
Most came from the Manston short-term holding facility. Tinsley House often received incomplete health information about them. Many men had expected to go to a hotel and felt anxious about their cases.
Detainees received very little information about what awaited them in France. The centre had not contacted French counterparts. Some men waited up to a week for a legal advice appointment.
In the previous six months, 21 detainees brought from Manston later turned out to be children. Inspectors said poor practice and long delays in age assessments left some children without proper safeguarding.
More than half of all detainees were eventually released. In the last six months, 52% had been released and 41% removed. The Chief Inspector of Prisons questioned why so many had been locked up “at a huge cost to the taxpayer”.
We will expect to see the deterioration halted and a renewed energy amongst leaders and staff to address our findings.
Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Grades and conditions
The inspectorate tests removal centres against four healthy establishment tests: safety, respect, activities and preparation for removal and release.
Tinsley House scored reasonably good for safety, activities and preparation for removal and release. It scored not sufficiently good for respect. In 2023, it had scored reasonably good on all four.
The centre held 136 detainees during the inspection, against an operational capacity of 187. On average, 33 men arrived each week, far more than at the last inspection.
Tinsley House opened in 1996 as the UK’s first purpose-built immigration removal centre. Detainees spent an average of 39 days there, but one man had stayed for 463 days. The largest groups came from Afghanistan, Albania and Eritrea.
Rooms lacked ventilation. Drainage faults left a pervasive foul smell in communal toilets and showers. Many rooms carried extensive graffiti, and detainees had little storage space.
Leaders told inspectors they would improve ventilation when the centre closed for other essential works in October.
Health care in decline
Health care drew some of the strongest criticism. Weak leadership over time had left the service deteriorating just as needs grew.
Managers handled staffing, training and supervision poorly. The centre offered no psychological or therapy services, and mental health provision overall was poor.
Inspectors also found poor identification of signs of modern slavery, even where men gave repeated accounts of exploitation. Rule 35 reports, which doctors write when detention may harm someone, took too long and sometimes never appeared.
Home Office checks to find very vulnerable men who should not be detained were slow and not thorough enough. Some vulnerable and high-risk detainees left the centre homeless.
Staff, activities and leadership
Staffing was generally good. Most detainees said staff treated them well, and inspectors saw mostly positive interactions. Staff did not always use interpreters when needed, though.
Many staff told the inspectorate’s survey they would not blow the whistle on colleagues. None of those who had raised concerns felt anyone had taken them seriously.
Leaders had made some efforts to improve the staff culture. Use of force received generally good oversight, and 86% of detainees in the survey said staff treated them well in reception. Yet some security measures, such as restrictions on contact during visits, went further than the risks required.
Many men slept through the morning and missed activities. The gym and sports hall saw more use later in the day. The library offered internet access but held hardly any books, and its legal texts were out of date.
Keeping in touch also proved hard. Phone calls cost a lot, and many men struggled to set up or reach their email accounts.
Inspectors raised 14 key concerns, six of them priorities. Of eight concerns from 2023, the centre had fully addressed one and partly addressed another.
Inspectors recorded three examples of notable positive practice. These included a free minibus for visitors from Gatwick station and Wi-Fi smartphones that eased contact with families and the Home Office.
About this story
This story is based on HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on Tinsley House IRC, published on 28 September 2026, following an inspection that ended in July 2026. All figures and judgements are the inspectorate’s. Read the full inspection report · See the prison’s profile in our directory.
