Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Exhibit a 5

50 views

Published on

Supporting document (Exhibit A-5) to Appellant’s notice of appeal against a Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner, in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Exhibit a 5

  1. 1. IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER (INFORMATION RIGHTS) APPEAL: EA/2017/0161 BETWEEN: Appellant and THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent EXHIBIT A-5 Citing repetition and abuse of process to justify non-recording of crime
  2. 2. Humberside Police log 207 of 7 January 2017 "I have suspicions that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the Magistrate's court, operations are being run criminally. This is after recently becoming aware of a total eleven items of correspondence stated to have been sent to me by post from the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire. I can categorically confirm that not one of these have been delivered to me. Copies of the letters in question which go back to December 2013 have only been seen by me as a result of preliminary investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman (last year) and a HMCTS complaint (this year). The first time I have seen copies of the correspondence relate to two separate dates. Three items in respect of the Judicial Ombudsman 23 February 2016 and eight in respect of 3 January 2017. If in fact the letters have not been sent I wish to know (if proven) what criminal offence has been committed and how to report the matter. I know that the various organisations and complaints procedure within HMCTS are not appropriate as they do not investigate criminal allegations. The matter can not simply be dismissed as one's word against another's as a question arises as to whether some of the letters should have been recorded or signed for. I have spotted anomalies that would support my suspicions, for example the local authority to whom copies of a number of items should have also been served has confirmed that it holds no record of them either..."
  3. 3. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Making a complaint against the police, a Police and Crime Commissioner or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime IPCC Office Use Only Completing the form Please use BLOCK CAPITALS when completing this form. If you have any difficulties in filling out this form, and would like to discuss it please call 101. If you would like someone to act on your behalf (perhaps a friend or relative) please provide their details and your written permission for them to act on your behalf and submit this with your form. Your details (complainant) Title: e.g. Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms (Mr) First name: Surname: Date of birth: / / Address: Grimsby North East Lincolnshire Postcode: DN32 Work telephone N/A Home telephone number N/A Mobile telephone number: N/A Email: @gmail.com
  4. 4. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Who are you complaining about? Please give the details of who you are complaining about – for example the police force / Police and Crime Commissioner or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Police force For complaints against the police please give us any details you might have about the officer(s) you would like to make a complaint against: Name, rank, ID and any other identifier: Suspected WPC Mellows Name, rank, ID and any other identifier: ……………………………………………… If you know the police station that the officer/s work from, please give details: Grimsby police station (Assume) What is your complaint about? Please describe the circumstances that have led to your complaint? Include details of: At this stage we only require a summary of your complaint, but you may attach additional information if necessary. Please use the space provided on the last page of this form. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… A crime was submitted on Humberside police’s website, as follows: "I have suspicions that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the Magistrate's court, operations are being run criminally. This is after recently becoming aware of a total eleven items of correspondence stated to have been sent to me by post from the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire. I can categorically confirm that not one of these have been delivered to me. • Who was involved? • What was said and done • Where the incident took place • When the incident took place • If there was any damage or injury • Any other people who witnessed the incident • Details of any witness
  5. 5. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Copies of the letters in question which go back to December 2013 have only been seen by me as a result of preliminary investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman (last year) and a HMCTS complaint (this year). The first time I have seen copies of the correspondence relate to two separate dates. Three items in respect of the Judicial Ombudsman 23 February 2016 and eight in respect of 3 January 2017. If in fact the letters have not been sent I wish to know (if proven) what criminal offence has been committed and how to report the matter. I know that the various organisations and complaints procedure within HMCTS are not appropriate as they do not investigate criminal allegations. The matter can not simply be dismissed as one's word against another's as a question arises as to whether some of the letters should have been recorded or signed for. I have spotted anomalies that would support my suspicions, for example the local authority to whom copies of a number of items should have also been served has confirmed that it holds no record of them either..." A woman police officer contacted me by telephone on 10 January 2017 who stated that the matter was not for the police and the court should be contacted. A reference number was stated to be log 207 of 7 January 2017. I disagreed with the decision and I asked for the reasons for the decision to be put in writing so I could formally appeal it. The officer agreed to do this but I have not received any correspondence. Signature and date The details of this complaint will be sent to the appropriate authority responsible for considering your complaint. Please sign and date to confirm the information you have provided is correct: Signature Date 25 February 2017
  6. 6. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters Priory Road Hull HU5 5SF Tel 101 Fax 01482 305004 12 April 2017 Mr Grimsby DN Dear Mr , I am writing with reference to your complaint reference CO/00127/2017 recorded by Humberside Police on the 10th March 2017, Incident log 207 07/01/17 refers. I am the supervising officer of the officer associated with your complaint. Your complaint has been dealt with by way of the Local Resolution Procedure and I agree that this is a suitable course of action in the circumstances. Humberside Police is committed to providing a quality of service to all members of the public and I am grateful, therefore, that you have taken the trouble to bring this matter to Force's attention. Accordingly, the matter causing you concern was recorded and I was appointed to enquire into it. You have alleged that PS 2403 Mellors has advised that she had agreed to send you a letter confirming that an issue you had reported was not a police matter, and that the letter had never been received by you. PS Mellors has now been spoken to and details of your complaint have been brought to her attention. I have checked the relevant log and confirm that PS Mellors did agree that the letter would be sent, and delayed the log to do so. Another officer believing that there was no reason to keep the log open has closed it, and this has led to an oversight by PS Mellors in not writing that letter to you. PS Mellors has offered her sincere apologies for this oversight and has now completed that correspondence which I attach. I have given PS Mellors management advice about ensuring that commitments, once made are adhered to which are accepted by her, and I am confident that this matter NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
  7. 7. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED is an isolated incident in relation to this officer. I am sorry you felt cause to complain on this occasion and hope that this experience will not adversely affect any future contact you may have with members of the Humberside Police. The appropriate appeal body is the Humberside Police Appeal Body as your complaint does not relate to the conduct of a senior officer, has not been referred to the IPCC, does not justify criminal or misconduct proceedings and does not arise from the same incident as a complaint where the IPec would have to deal with any appeal. You have 29 days from the date of this letter, within which to make your appeal. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC/Humberside Police Appeal Body before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day is 11th May, 2017. Appeals received after 29 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances. You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time. Yours Sincerely NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
  8. 8. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters Priory Road Hull HU5 5SF Tel 101 Fax 01482 305004 5 April 2017 Mr Grimsby DN Dear Mr , I am writing with reference to your complaint you made on the 7th January 2017, Incident log 207 07/01/17 refers, regarding the suspicions that within the Humber and South division of the Magistrate's court, operations had been run criminally after items of correspondence had not been delivered to you. Professional Standards Branch within Humberside Police have reviewed this and confirmed that this is not a complaint against police or an allegation of misconduct against any police officer or support member of staff. This information was relayed to you during a telephone conversation on the 10/01/17 by myself and I am confirming this in writing as requested. Yours Sincerely NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
  9. 9. RESTRICTED - POLICY RESTRICTED - POLICY1 For Internal Use Only We must receive your complaint within 29 days of the date of the letter telling you about the outcome of the complaint. This includes the time your appeal spends in the post. Please tick the appropriate box: Mr Mrs Miss Ms Other (please specify) ………………………… First name: (Please write clearly) Surname: (Please write clearly) ....................................... Your address: …………………................... ………………………………………… …………………...................Grimsby…………………… …………………...................North East Lincolnshire……………………………………… …………………Postcode…DN ……….. Daytime telephone number Evening telephone number None………………………….. None…………………… Email address: … @googlemail.com …………………………………. _______________________________________________ Date you made on your complaint Reference number (if known) …………………25/02/17…………….. ………CO 127/17…………………… If you have received a letter about the outcome of the local resolution of your complaint, please give the date of that letter: ………12/04/17…………………………………………. APPEALS AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF LOCAL RESOLUTION
  10. 10. RESTRICTED - POLICY RESTRICTED - POLICY3 Do you agree with the outcome of the local resolution? Tick one box only. Yes No If your answer is no, please provide further information, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. My complaint was that Sergeant Mellors contacted me by telephone on 10 January 2017 and stated that the matter I had reported 7 January 2017 online was not for the police and the court should be contacted. I disagreed with the decision and I asked for the reasons for the decision to be put in writing so I could formally appeal it. I have now received a letter dated 5 April 2017 from Sergeant Mellors as a result of my complaint but the contents are irrelevant. As stated I was informed by Sergeant Mellors on 10 January that the concerns were not a matter for the police and the court should be contacted, however, the 5 April letter states that the criminal matter I had alleged was “not a complaint against police or an allegation of misconduct against any police officer or support member of staff”. This oddly implies that Humberside police do not investigate criminal activity unless it has been committed by officers serving with Humberside police. I outlined why I believed that that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the Magistrate's court, operations were being run criminally. Clearly I was not complaining about the conduct of a police officer and I am therefore confused about why my letter dated 5 April deals with the matter as if it was. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Do you feel the outcome was a proper outcome? This means that, for example, you believe the outcome was not appropriate to the complaint, or the outcome did not reflect the evidence available. Tick one box only. Yes No If your answer is no, please provide further information, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………...................…………….......…………………...………………………………………. As above ……………………………………………………….................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
  11. 11. RESTRICTED - POLICY RESTRICTED - POLICY4 If you have any documents that support your appeal please list below or attach to them to this form when submitting your appeal ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. An email of 19 March 2017 in which Christine Wilson (head of specialist crime) was copied has a number of documents attached relevant to this matter, i.e., supporting my allegation of dishonesty within Grimsby Magistrates’ court. Evidence is contained in those papers that support my allegations that the court had dishonestly produced a substantial number of documents claiming them to have been sent going as far back as 2013 that had in fact never been sent. The final outcome dealt with by HMCTS’ complaints handling team regarding the documents (19 March email) is appended to this complaint. The court has obviously not gone so far as admitting the alleged crime, but it supports that my concerns are valid and is now a matter for the police to investigate. ......................……………...................................................................................................... _______________________________________________ Signature of the person making this appeal: Date: …………………................................... .…… 22 /04 / 2017 All public bodies are obliged to record the ethnicity of people using its service. Being able to identify the ethnicity of complainants helps us to check it is reaching all sections of society. Please describe your ethnicity using the boxes below:
  12. 12. HM Courts & Tribunals Service Mr Grimsby North East Lincolnshire DN32 6 April 2017 Without Prejudice Dear Mr HM Courts & Tribunals Service Customer Investigations Team Post Point 10.34 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk Our ref: 00042/165/1617 Grimsby Magistrate’s Court Thank you for your letter of 19 March about the way your application for a case stated was handled by the Grimsby Magistrates’ Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final stage of the complaints process. I have reviewed the previous responses from Mrs Watts and Mr Hopgood and having done so I believe your complaint needs further investigation. After careful consideration I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer you compensation for the poor level of service that you have received. My reasons for this are as follows. I understand that the North East Lincolnshire Council issued a summons against you for unpaid council tax and the court hearing was set for 2 November 2012. Before the hearing took place you paid the outstanding sum of £437.52 and also £10 towards the costs. The court decided that you should pay the council’s remaining costs of £60. On the 21 November 2012 you applied to the court to state a case so you could appeal the decision. An acknowledgment was sent to you on 22 November 2012 by the Deputy Justices’ Clerk, Mr Draper. You chased for a response on 28 December 2012 but your email to Mr Draper was not delivered. You then emailed the Justices’ Clerk, Mrs Alison Watts, also on 28 December 2012. You received a response to your emails on 14 January 2013 from Mr Townell confirming that he would find out what was happening with your application. On the 24 January 2013 Mrs Watts wrote to you to confirm that the justices required you to enter into a recognizance of £500 before they stated the case for consideration of the High Court. On the 5 February 2013 you wrote to the court to find out why you had been asked to pay £500. You felt that you were being prevented access to the courts because you could not afford this sum. The court acknowledged your letter on 6 February and dfgdda
  13. 13. Page 2 confirmed the matter would be brought to the attention of Mrs Watts. You chased for a reply on 26 February and were informed on 27 February that Mrs Watts was looking into the matter. I note that on the 23 March 2013 you wrote to the Administrative Court Office (ACO) telling them that you would like to apply to the High Court for an order that the justices state the case. You were told by the ACO that you would need to apply for Judicial Review (JR). On the 27 March you asked the court for an update and you were informed on the same day that the matter was ‘receiving attention’. In the absence of a response you wrote a further letter on 29 April asking for a certificate under section 111(5) of the MCA1980 to confirm the reasons why the justices have refused to state a case. You explained that if you did not receive a response within 14 days you would be apply for a JR. In the absence of a response you began the JR procedure and your application was issued on 13 June 2013. The court’s response to your JR application was that you had not been asked to pay the £500 upfront and that the letter dated 23 January 2013 explained that position. However, the court agreed, in order to save public money, to prepare a draft case and serve on the parties within 14 days. On the 24 July 2013 a draft case was dispatched for the parties’ comments. You replied on 19 August 2013. I note that the council responded on 9 September 2013. On the 10 January 2014, and also on 13 February, you wrote to the court to ask why the final case stated had not been sent out. On the 6 March Mrs Watts said she would look into the matter and get back to you by the following morning. You then wrote again on 22 April 2014 asking why you have not had a response. In the absence of a response you raised a complaint with the Advisory Committee. I do not propose to repeat the history of this specific complaint, but I have noted that you experienced difficulties with the process. You escalated the matter to the Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) and received a final report on 23 May 2016. On the 25 June 2016 you wrote to my team out of frustration because you were yet to receive the case stated and this was preventing you to go to the High Court. At this point you had waited three and half years for the case to be stated. In line with the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) complaints process my team asked the court to investigate what had happened. Mrs Watts wrote to you on the 22 July 2016 and acknowledge that the level of service provided to you on occasions could have been better. She explained that the case stated was posted to you on 19 December 2013 and that further copies were sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. On the 26 January 2017 you emailed Ms Collins asking for a review of the complaint. I believe that you had recently received copies of correspondence from the court file following a Subject Access Request and had found that a number of letters had not reached you through the post. Mr Hopgood responded to you on 22 February 2017 at the review stage of the complaints process.
  14. 14. Page 3 My findings. It is clear that you had a strong view about the costs that were awarded to the local council on 2 November 2012. While the amount in contention was £60, it was your right to apply to the court to state a case. The initial handling of your application was poor because insufficient arrangements had been made to cover Mr Draper’s work after he had left the court. I am sorry that you had to wait two months before you received the court’s letter of 24 January 2013. You had a number of issues with the decision to impose a recognizance to pay £500 and wrote to the court about this. I understand the consequence of entering into a recognizance was that if you did not pursue your appeal in the High Court you would have had to pay £500. If you did pursue your appeal the £500 would not have to be paid. I cannot comment on a judicial decision but I do consider the handling of your correspondence on the matter was very poor. I could not find any substantial response to your letter of 5 February 2013 and I believe this was the court’s opportunity to clarify and explain the position to you. It must have been very frustrating for you that you were not given a full reply. I am sorry that the only way you were able to prompt a response from the court was by issuing a judicial review application. It was at that stage that the court decided to prepare the draft case without the need for a recognizance. It is my view that the final case stated document could have been prepared in a timelier manner and served on the parties before the 19 December 2013. You have said that you did not receive the court’s letter of 19 December 2013 or the additional letters sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. I am not doubting you did not receive the letters through the post. I am sorry that is the case but I have not seen any reason to believe they were not posted to you. I have noted the court’s admission that the final case should have been sent by recorded delivery. The court is unable to provide any evidence that this method of postage was used. Therefore I hold the view the letter of 19 December 2013 was not sent by recorded delivery. It is regrettable that you did not receive 10 documents through the post but, in the absence of receiving the letters, I do appreciate why you felt you were being ignored. I therefore understand why you made a complaint about the judiciary. After you received the final JACO report in 2016 you reverted to the HMCTS complaints process. Again, it is regrettable that you did not received the court’s response dated 22 July 2016 but I have not seen any reason to suggest that it was not posted to you in the normal way. Conclusion My conclusion is that you have experienced a very poor level of service due to the way your correspondence had been handled. The court had a number of opportunities to clarify the position for you and, in the absence of doing so, it caused you a lot of frustration and inconvenience. While I am satisfied that the letters on file would have been posted to you, it is my view that an alternative service method of the final case stated should have been considered after your third request for a copy had been received. While I appreciate you were pursuing a complaint about the judiciary between 2014 and 2016, I do have to take into account the fact that you did not pursue the court for a copy of the final case for over two years. I also appreciate the fact that you could not pursue an appeal until the case had been stated by the magistrates’ court. However, I
  15. 15. Page 4 believe you could have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties you were having. In addition, I have not seen any reason why you could not have telephoned the court to chase the final case stated document. Overall, I believe an apology alone will not be sufficient in recognition of the poor level of service that you received. I would therefore like to offer you the sum of £375 in recognition of the poor handling of your application and subsequent correspondence. I would also like to offer you a further sum of £375 to apologise for the frustration and inconvenience that you experienced. If you would like to accept the total sum of £750 please let me know in writing (by email is fine) and I will arrange payment to you. If you would prefer a bank transfer please provide me with your bank details. Please allow 20 working days for the money to reach you after I have received your acceptance. If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). By law the Ombudsman can only look at complaints about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP. Please fill out the form on the Ombudsman’s website www.ombudsman.org.uk/making- complaint first and then pass it to an MP. Please be aware that there are time limits for the Ombudsman to look into complaints and they are investigated at the PHSO’s discretion. You can find your local MP at findyourmp.parliament.uk. Yours sincerely Richard Redgrave Head of Customer Investigations
  16. 16. RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS Humberside Police Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters, Priory Road, Hull, HU5 5SF. Switchboard: 101 Tel: 01482 578335 Fax: 01482 305004 This matter is being dealt with by: Professional Standards psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk www.humberside.police.uk IX/ 782/17/SAS 5 July 2017 Mr Grimsby North East Lincolnshire DN Dear Mr This letter is about your appeal against Humberside Police which was received on 22nd April 2017 and the decision by The Humberside Police Complaints Board (Sally Laycock) that part of your complaint in respect of Humber and South Yorkshire Division of Magistrates Court should be considered separately. You would have received a letter dated 27th June 2017 from Sally Laycock advising that your appeal had not been upheld and a report was attached explaining that decision. You were also advised she was passing the file back to Professional Standards Branch to consider a recording decision about the actual criminal allegations you were making and the reasons why the police were not investigating them. This letter is intended to explain that issue. The previous complaints have been reviewed, they have a historical connection with the matters you are currently complaining about. You have made references to investigations being carried out by the Judicial Ombudsman and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services. You refer to correspondence between the courts and yourself which you assert you did not receive pointing to criminal offences of fraud or conspiracy to defraud.
  17. 17. RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS These matters arise from a longstanding dispute with North East Lincolnshire Council over alleged unpaid council tax and their attempt to recover the same through the Magistrates Court and debt recovery agents. Debts were paid by instalments and the Council, Court and their agents did not acknowledge this but continued legal process. This was considered both by the Humberside Police Economic Crime Unit and by the Professional Standards Branch and evidential documents submitted by yourself supportive of your allegations were included. (Files CO/567/11 and CO/19/14 refer). Two different Inspectors considered these matters of alleged criminal extortion or fraud both arriving at the conclusion they were not satisfied there were good grounds to support that criminal offences had been committed. This was after fact finding enquiries were conducted with both NELC and the courts. An Inspector visited your home and explained to you your allegations were not of a criminal nature but related to mal-administration. Your suggestion there was some kind of collective conspiracy is not of sustainable proportion. The complaint you have raised is fundamentally the same as those alleged previously, and missing letters or letters not sent are part of that process and subject. Your complaint in this respect is therefore repetitious. 'Complaints against Police' are strictly governed by legislation, namely the Police Reform Act 2002 (as amended by the Police & Social Responsibility Act 2011) and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012. These specify that there are certain criteria under which a complaint does not have to be recorded. These include if the complaint is repetitious. You have submitted complaints and appeals through the Ombudsman and HMCTS which is the correct forum for this matter and the Police Complaints process is not designed or intended to cater for this. This compliant is therefore in my view an Abuse of Process. This matter will not be recorded on the grounds of Repetition and Abuse of process. This decision will be disappointing for you and recognise you have committed a great deal of time and research into these matters over which you feel a keen sense of grievance. If you are not happy with the decision you can appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Enclosed is a document advising you of this process. You have 29 days from the day after the date of this letter, within which to make your appeal to the IPCC. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day is 03rd April, 2017. Appeals received after 29 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
  18. 18. RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time. Yours sincerely
  19. 19. Appealing against a complaint not being recorded The IPCC must receive your appeal within 28 days commencing on the day after the date of the letter you have received from the police. This includes the time your appeal spends in the post. This form is also available online; completing the form online will speed up this process. Alternatively, please fill in and return this form as instructed at the bottom of the form. ____________________________________________________ If there is anything which makes it difficult for you to use this service, for example if English is not your first language or you have a disability; please contact the IPCC using the contact details at the end of this form. Alternatively, please use the space below to tell us how we might help to make things easier for you. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….......... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Please give the name of the appropriate authority your complaint was about. Humberside Police ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... If you have received a letter from the appropriate authority telling you that they will not be recording your complaint, please give the date of that letter. 5 July 2017 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... ___________________________________________________ Please tick the appropriate box: Mr Mrs Miss Ms Other (please specify) …………………………… First name: (Please write clearly) …………………………………………………………….. Last name: (Please write clearly) …………………………………………………………… Date of birth: ……… / / ……………………………………………………………………….
  20. 20. Your address: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire ……………………………………………………………….Postcode: ……………………DN32 Daytime telephone number: Evening telephone number: 01234456789…. ………………………………. Email address: Date you made your complaint: @gmail.com…………… 25/02/2017 ____________________________________________________ Who did you make your complaint to, for example, the police, the IPCC, or another organisation? Humberside Police …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Please provide brief details of the complaint that you made. Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary. Humberside police has made a decision not to formally record criminal allegations I made (Humberside Police log 207 of 7 January 2017) because it considers it to be a Repetition of the matter I previously complained of and was an Abuse of process. The force has linked the matter, for the purposes of invalidating the allegations, to complaints that I had made in 2011 and 2014. Those complaints are referred to by Humberside Police as having references, CO/567/11 and CO/19/14. The 2014 matter concerned allegations of fraud by bailiffs contracted to North East Lincolnshire Council, however, I have not found any correspondence with reference number (CO/567/11) regarding the earlier matter but presume it concerned the issue of Council Tax summonses issued en masse without being properly monitored. It is not deemed necessary to elaborate because the allegations relating to the present matter have no connection whatsoever with either of the previous issues. It is considered relevant however to point out that the description in the first paragraph of the second page of Humberside Police’s letter dated 5 July 2017 misrepresents the allegations made in 2011 and 2014, i.e., ‘debts were paid by instalments and the Council, Court and their agents did not acknowledge this but continued legal process’. The following paragraph (5 July letter) states completely falsely that ‘an inspector visited your home and explained to you your allegations were not of a criminal nature but related to mal-administration’. No visit ever took place. This anomaly has been pointed out to Humberside police numerous times but the force continues to make this claim without explanation.
  21. 21. My allegations currently concern 10 items of post, claimed to have been sent to me by the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire, spanning the period from 19 December 2013 to 22 July 2016 (none of which I had received). The Justices' Clerk claims that none of the letters were returned by Royal Mail. I had only learned about these letters after receiving copies of them as a result of investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman and later a HMCTS complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, I allege a total of 10 letters were dishonesty claimed to have been posted to me which had been produced purposely to satisfy the various enquiries. Humberside police considers that because the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS have been involved that it is an Abuse of process to subsequently allege a crime has been committed to the force. The Ombudsman and HMCTS’ involvement is entirely irrelevant as the complaints had been submitted with the objective of receiving responses from the Justices' Clerk to letters which had not been answered over a several year period. The Ombudsman and HMCTS obtained copies of the letters which I had never received and which I believed had been produced afterwards. By this time I was satisfied that the matter had become criminal and would be most appropriately dealt with by the police. Please tell the IPCC why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was handled by ticking the appropriate box. The appropriate authority did not make a decision about whether to record my complaint. The appropriate authority did not record my complaint. The appropriate authority did not forward my complaint to the appropriate authority involved (this does not apply if your complaint is about a contractor). ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… If you have any evidence or information to support your appeal, for example photos or letters, please list below. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Please note that the information you provide relating to an appeal will be passed to the appropriate authority involved. ____________________________________________________ Signature of the person making this appeal: Date: 08/07/2017
  22. 22. fit IOur reference number: 2017/088770 Force reference number: IX/782/17/SAS nt 28 July 2017- independent annibynnol PO Box 473 SaleM33 oBW BlwchPost473 SaleM33 oBW Tel/Ff6n:0300 020 0096 Dear Mr- Fax/Ffacs:0207166 3306 ------------ Textrelay/CyfnewidTestun:18001 0207166 3000 We are independent of the police. Our role is to look at wh~~f~Q~enquiries@ipc~.gSi.gov.ukcomplaint should have been re~orded. /Vhen making ~y decision f'j{g~~ft~www.IPCc.gov.uk see: • if the chief officer or appropriate authority failed to make a decision? • if the chief officer or appropriate authority failed to notify the correct appropriate authority? • if the matter/s you raised should have been recorded as a complaint? After looking at all the information available I have upheld your appeal. My letter to you will consider each point. 1. Did the chief officer or appropriate authority fail to make a decision? No, Humberside Police reviewed your complaint dated 25 February 2017 and notified you of their decision not to record your complaint on 5 July 2017. The reason for the delay in providing this decision is set out in their letter of 5 July 2017 and is referenced in full below. Not upheld. 2. Did the chief officer or appropriate authority fail to notify the appropriate authority? No, Humberside Police is the appropriate authority. Not upheld. 3. Should the matterls you raised have been recorded as a complaint? When a complaint is made to a chief officer or appropriate authority, they have a duty to record any complaint about the conduct (behaviour) of a person serving with the police or a contractor. The law allows the chief officer Mae'r IPCCyn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg
  23. 23. or appropriate authority not to record a complaint where certain statutory exceptions are met. It is important to highlight that in reaching my decision I have considered all of the material and comments provided. Where a document or comment has not been specifically referred to, it does not mean it has not be considered. I have reviewed your complaint dated 25 February 2017 and I consider that the matters you raise are required to be recorded. In your complaint you note that you submitted an allegation to the force on 7 January 2017 claiming that Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrate's Court was being run criminally. Specifically, you claim that you had recently become aware of 11 items of correspondence that the Justice's Clerk claimed to have sent you however you have stated that none of the correspondence was delivered to you. You note that the Jetters in question date from December 2013 and you have only seen them as a result of investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman on 23 February 2016 and HMCTS on 3 January 2017. In your complaint you state that following the submission of the above allegation on the force's website on 7 January 2017, a police officer contacted you by telephone on 10 January 2017. You note that the police officer stated that the matter was not for the police and the court should be contacted. You state that you disagreed with the decision and asked for the reasons for the decision to be put in writing so that you could formally appeal it. You claim that the officer agreed to do that however you did not receive any such correspondence. It appears that the force recorded your complaint under reference number CO/127/17 and wrote to you with the following summary of your complaint on 10 March 2017: 'The complainant alleged that he was told than an officer would put in writing why an issue which he reported was not a police matter and he had not received a response'. The complaint was then subject to a local resolution; the outcome of which was sent to you on 12 April 2017. The outcome of the local resolution noted that the officer, PS Mellors, had mistakenly failed to write to you as agreed. An apology was provided and PS Mellors received management advice. You then appealed the outcome of the local resolution on 22 April 2017. Within your appeal, you claimed that in your complaint of 25 February 2017 you were complaining that the force were not investigating Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrates Court. You further stated that you were not complaining about the conduct of the police officer. The force wrote to you on 27 June 2017 explaining that they did not uphold your appeal on the basis that a copy of the summary of your complaint was sent you on 10 March 2017 and you did not contact the force at that point to advise them that your complaint was not actually about the officer not writing
  24. 24. to you. Despite not upholding your appeal, the force agreed that the matter should be referred back to the Professional Standards Department for them to make a recording decision in relation to your complaint of 25 February 2017. For the avoidance of doubt, based on the above information, I believe that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 concerns the force's decision not to investigate your allegation against the Magistrate's Court which you submitted on 7 January 2017 as a criminal matter. The force wrote to you on 5 July 2017 to notify you that they would not be recording your complaint on the basis that they considered it to be both repetitious and an abuse of the police complaints process. I will now consider each ground in turn. With regards to the repetitious ground, the force referred specifically to two previous complaints which you had submitted under references CO/567/11 and CO/19/14 (the force have since confirmed that the correct reference is in fact 1X/19/14). They stated that the previous complaints have a historical connection with the matters you are currently complaining about. They note that these matters arise from a longstanding dispute with North East Lincolnshire Council over alleged unpaid council tax and their attempt to recover the same through the Magistrate's Court and debt recovery agents. They state that debts were paid by instalments and the Council, Court and their agents did not acknowledge this but continued the legal process. The force note that two different Inspectors considered these matters of alleged criminal extortion and fraud and both concluded that there were no good grounds to support that criminal offences had been committed. The force state that your complaint of 25 February 2017 is substantially the same as those alleged previously and missing letters or letters not sent are part of that process and subject. A complaint is considered to be repetitious if it is substantially the same as the previous complaint, contains no fresh allegations and no fresh evidence is provided in support. I have reviewed your previous complaints under reference CO/567/11 and IX/19/14. Your complaint CO/567/11 was dated 4 December 2011 and appears to relate to the council and their enforcement practices in relation to the recovery of council tax, rather than a complaint against the police. It appears that because the complaint did not specifically relate to the police, the force did not take any further action. Your complaint IX/19/14 was dated 24 November 2013. It appears that in your complaint you claim that the force did not properly investigate fraudulent activity between Rossendale Bailiffs and the North East Lincolnshire Council. I understand that the force sent you a proportionate investigation letter in relation to this complaint which you appealed however the appeal was not upheld. I note that the matter was finalised in 2015.
  25. 25. I do not agree with the force that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is repetitious of your previous complaints. Firstly, it appears that your complaint of 25 February 2017 concerns the force's decision not to criminally investigate an allegation which you made on 7 January 2017 in relation to letters which the Justice's Clerk claimed to have sent you in and after December 2013. You claim that the first time you had sight of the letters in question was on 23 February 2016 and 3 January 2017. Therefore both the letters in question and the allegation which you submitted to the force postdate your previous complaints so I do not consider that the complaints are substantially the same. Secondly, your complaint of 25 February 2017 appears to relate to the force's decision not to criminally investigate the Magistrate's Court whereas your previous complaints appear to relate to the council and bailiffs. Whilst the complaints may involve historically connected issues, I do not consider them to be fundamentally the same. With regards to the abuse of the police complaints process ground, in their letter dated 5 July 2017 the force note that you have submitted complaints and appeals through the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS which they consider to be the correct forum for this matter. They state that the police complaints process is not designed or intended to cater for matters such as this. A complaint is considered to be an abuse of the police complaints procedures where there is or has been manipulation or misuse of the complaints system to initiate or progress a complaint which, in all the circumstances of the particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to continue. I do not consider that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is an abuse of the police complaints procedures. I note the force have referred to the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS being the correct forum for this matter. However, I believe that the crux of your complaint is that the police have decided not to criminally investigate the Magistrate's Court for conduct which you consider to be criminal. I therefore consider that your complaint does specifically relate to the force and a decision that they have made. I believe the police complaints system is designed to cater for members of the public to be able to complain about decisions that the police have made if they are dissatisfied with those decisions. I believe that you made it clear to the force from the outset that you wished to challenge the decision as you stated that you wanted the force to provide you with the reasons for their decision in writing so that you could appeal it. As you have stated, despite not receiving those reasons, you submitted your complaint as you wished to challenge the decision. I believe you have attempted to utilise the police complaints system in an appropriate manner and [ therefore do not consider this to be an attempt to misuse or manipulate the police complaints procedures.
  26. 26. In light of the above, I do not consider that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is either repetitious or an abuse of the police complaints process and I will therefore be upholding your appeal. Upheld. Humberside Police will be directed to record your complaint dated 25 February 2017. The force will contact you about your complaint in due course. Please contact the force directly if you do not hear from them within 28 days. If you have any questions or need any more information about my decision please contact me using the details at the end of this letter. Yours sincerely AlexSimms Assessment Analyst Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Tel: 0121 6733767 Emaii: www.ipcc.gov.uk Find the IPCC's guidance on handling complaints here: http://www.ipcc.gov.uklpage/statutory-guidance cc: Humberside Police
  27. 27. CO/00535/17 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters Priory Road Hull HU5 5SF Tel No: 01482 578133 Fax No: 01482 305004 Switchboard: 101 This matter is being dealt with by: Caseworker - Mr T Walmsley psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk www.humberside.police.uk 09 August 2017 Mr Grimsby North East Lincolnshire DN Dear Mr May I refer to the complaint which you made about the conduCt of an officer from this Force. This matter has been formally recorded under the Police Reform Act 2002 as amended by the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011. I enclose a copy of the complaint as it has been recorded for your information. The file has been passed to a caseworker who will do some initial evidence gathering in relation to your complaint before it is forwarded to an investigating officer. You will be informed in due course as to who the investigating officer will be. This process would normally be completed within 28 days however if there is any further delay you will be updated accordingly. Should you change your address before the completion of the enquiry, I would ask you to notify this office at the above address as soon as possible, to enable us to keep you updated with the progress of the enquiry. Yours sincerely NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
  28. 28. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Professional Standards Branch Complainant Report Case Reference CO/00535/17 Case Recorded 09/08/17 COMPLAINANT Title Surname Forenames Mr Address Grimsby North East Lincolnshire DN ALLEGATION(S) No Recorded Type Location Allegation Allegation Result 1 09/08/17 Operational policing policies Grimsby The complainant states the police have failed to investigate criminal allegations of malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to him between the 19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received, and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime
  29. 29. CO/00535/17 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police Professional Standards Branch Police Headquarters Priory Road Hull HU5 5SF Tel No: 01482 578343 Fax No: 01482 305004 Switchboard: 101 This matter is being dealt with by: Sally Banks psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk www.humberside.police.uk 1 September 2017 Mr Grimsby North East Lincolnshire DN Dear Mr You were contacted a short time ago in relation to your complaint that was formally recorded with Professional Standards. I am writing to inform you that the matter is still being progressed with the caseworker. You will be informed within 28 days as to who the investigating officer will be or if there is to be a further delay. Should you change your address before the completion of the enquiry, I would ask you to notify this office at the above address as soon as possible, to enable us to keep you updated with the progress of the enquiry. I apologise for the delay Yours sincerely NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

×