You are on page 1of 18

IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/0062

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER


(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER


Respondent

EXHIBIT 3
Recording complaints wrongly
Humberside Police
Crime Management Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull, HU5 5SF
Switchboard: 101
Tel: 01482 578941

This matter is being dealt with by:


Communities, Criminals
Detective Inspector 1487 CALVERT

enqu iries@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.hurnberside.police.uk

CO 19/14 04 February 2014

Mr ~.
~ -----------
Grimsby ---------
-------
North East Lincolnshire
DN32 or .

Dear M~--====-=------

I am writing to info~m you of the outcome of the_complaint youmqqe on 24 November


2013 regarding the Forces decision not to investigate an allegation of Fraud.

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 as an
organisational issue and I was appointed to enquire into it.
I am the Detective Inspector in charge of the Economic Crime Unit and therefore this
matter has been passed to me to deal with.

I am in receipt of a large amount of correspondence from you and Detective Sergeant


Wood which I have examined in great detail. I am aware that your allegations are that of
fraud against Rossendale's bailiffs and the North East Lincolnshire Council.

I have also liaised with Detective Inspector Welton, who dealt with the same' complaint
you made to Humberside Police in 2009.

You may recall he visited you at your home and explained the reasons why your
allegations were not of a criminal nature.

In making the decision whether to investigate an allegation of fraud I have to bear in


mind the Home Office guidelines documented in the circular number 47 of 2004.

The decision on whether or not to investigate an allegation of fraud and the resources to
be devoted to any investigation rest solely with the police.

The police will only investigate in circumstances where there are good grounds to
believe that a criminal offence has been committed. In some cases some form of
preliminary inquiry may assist the police in determining whether the case is suitable for
full investigation.

In making this decision the police will have regard to the resources available,
government and local priorities, and the competing priorities of other fraud and criminal
cases already under investigation.
I also have to consider whether it would be more appropriate for this matter to be
referred to the appropriate regulatory body to deal with the allegations.

DS Wood carried out extensive research into your submission. He also met with
members of the Council Tax Department at the North East Lincolnshire Council and has
spoken with their counterparts at the Hull City Council.

The council have made no report of criminal wrongdoing by the bailiffs.

Therefore my decision still stands; Humberside Police will not be pursuing an


investigation into this matter for the reasons outlined in OS Woods's email dated 9th
November 2013.
Please be aware that as your complaint refers to an organisational issue there is no right
of appeal against the outcome of this process. This is in accordance with Paragraph 8A
Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
Yours sincerely,

~<::)\o~,
( .................... __
".:~~::~:::
."

Pr . Christine Calvert
T/Detective Inspector 1487

Humberside Police Major Crime Unit, Hessle.

2
Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>


To: <Christine.Calvert@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Cc: <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>;
<Eric.Pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; <Professional.Standards@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Attach: Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf; Argument to Opinion - Head C.pdf; Argument to Ross &
Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf; No Investigation 24 November 2013.pdf; police investigates itself
fails 25 February 2014.pdf
Sent: 25 February 2014 22:59
Subject: Ref: CO19/14

Dear Ms Calvert

Please find attached letter "police investigates itself fails 25 February 2014.doc" and other correspondence
referred to.

I would appreciate my concerns are looked into and referred to the Chief Constable of Humberside Police.

Yours sincerely

02/04/2017
Humberside Police
Crime Management Branch Grimsby
Police Headquarters North East Lincolnshire
Priory Road DN32
Hull, HU5 5SF

25/02/14

Dear Ms Calvert

Re: Decision to allow Rossendales/NELC to continue defrauding residents

I refer to your response dated 4 February 2014 regarding the complaint about Humberside
Polices decision not to investigate fraud allegations.

I am disappointed but not surprised that the force investigating itself over this matter has been a
complete sham. That the professional standards branch (PSB) wrongly categorised the
complaint such that there would be no right of appeal against the outcome was similarly
predictable.

Evidence has been supplied of sums fraudulently imposed on North East Lincs residents over
recent years of 325,000. This is only what has been corroborated through entering into over a
year and a half of litigation to literally force data from the Council. The figure only partly
represents what would be discovered if investigated, and a fraction of that stolen from the least
financially resilient, if all councils were accounted for.

There is no evidence in support of the Economic Crime Unit (ECU) making any serious attempt
to establish that the allegations had no merit. Making references to the Home Office Circular
47/2004 has on the contrary made an argument that such cases should be given priority for
investigation as the guidance clearly identifies the fraud several times in the listed priorities.

Similarly, citing the court of appeal case (R v Ghosh) was another own goal, figuratively
speaking, in that the two stage test developed from that case to define dishonesty would in fact
be satisfied and was explained in my letter to DS Wood dated 24 November 2013.
Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992 was cited in defence of NELC permitting
Rossendales to defraud debtors with their charges. This just highlights that the department must
have relied on an unreliable source with regards the law, owing to the judgment in that case
having no relevance. It would be safe to put money on it being members of the Council Tax
Department in whose interest it would be to ill advise DS Wood making enquiries. This is
probable, given that the professionals investigating have bizarrely admitted that the council,
against which the allegations were made, has been relied upon to rest assure them that there
has been no criminal wrongdoing by the bailiffs, thus side stepping allegations made against
them.

The concerns I would like Humberside Polices Chief Constable to look into are detailed at
Annex A, which incidentally does not constitute an appeal against the outcome of the PSBs
investigation into my wrongly recorded and incorrectly termed complaint. However, the
recording of the complaint as an organisational issue (direction and control), rather than a
conduct matter will be among the issues raised.

Yours sincerely

. .
ANNEX A

Wrongly recorded complaint

1. The complaint was recorded on14.1.14 and classified as an organisational decision (direction
and control) when it was clearly a conduct matter. The relevant case law for defining
direction and control complaints, as opposed to conduct matters is (North Yorkshire Police
Authority v IPCC (Jordan) 2010). The court ruled that a complaint could not be classed as
direction and control if a conduct issue was raised. The judge found that a direction and
control (decision), is essentially concerned with matters which are of a general nature, and
"a decision which is made by a chief officer which is confined to a particular subject falls
outside the definition of direction and control."

2. There can be no doubt that the complaint concerned conduct. For example there had been a
complete failure to research and understand the law relevant to the allegations. This is made
categorically clear in my letter (24.11.13). The councils word was sufficient to satisfy the
ECU that there was no criminal wrongdoing which is also a conduct matter (negligence)
where an obvious conflict of interest exists for a council officer to volunteer information that
would incriminate the contractor for which the council is responsible.

3. The mis-categorisation of the complaint has effectively deprived me of the right to appeal to
the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). There is the further issue arising
where the PSB has used the term organisational rather than direction and control. This
could be seen as misleading complainants that the PSB is justified in only recognising a
complaint as a conduct matter when specifically naming an officer.

4. Where it has been stated at the end of the PSB response (4.2.14) that there is no right of
appeal against the outcome of this process, the reference to the Police Reform Act 2002
has incorrectly been stated as, Paragraph 8A Schedule 3. The correct reference is
Paragraph 4(8)(a) and was amended by Paragraph 5(2) Schedule 14 of the Police Reform
and Social Responsibility Act 2011. In any event; though there is no right of appeal, the
correspondence could have been more open and stated that there is provision, subject to the
Commission consenting, that the authority may refer the complaint to the IPCC. Paragraph
5(2) Schedule 14 of The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, provides so far
as is relevant , the following:
"(2) In Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters), in paragraph 4
(reference of complaints to the Commission), after sub-paragraph (7) insert

"(8) In a case where

(a) a complaint relates to a direction and control matter, and

(b) there is no obligation under this paragraph for the appropriate


authority to refer the complaint to the Commission,

the appropriate authority may refer the complaint to the Commission


under this paragraph only if the Commission consents.

Believing council officers there has been no criminal wrongdoing

5. The organisation (against which allegations were made) stating that there has been no
criminal wrongdoing appears to have been chiefly relied on as the basis to satisfy the force
that the alleged sums being defrauded are legitimate. The ECUs decision not to investigate
on this basis is therefore indicative of collusion between Humberside Police and NELC. If the
aforesaid is untrue then there must be unimaginable naivety on the part of the ECU if it
believes council officers (under enormous pressure to lie) will say anything other than what
best protects councils reputation and legal position.

6. Local authorities notoriously deny that their bailiff contractors are unlawfully imposing
enforcement fees. This is evident in the way complaints from the public are dealt with, i.e.,
concluded as unfounded rather than upheld. Councils strive to keep upheld complaints to a
minimum as they are required to submit details each year to the Local Government
Ombudsman (LGO). Complaints are categorised into the number unfounded/upheld etc.,
which determines whether the LGO need investigate any failings. Another incentive for
councils to pretend there is no malpractice, stems from the pressure existing for the head of
department to submit a form 5 complaint about an offending bailiff to the certificating court.

7. For further insight into how councils make a priority of protecting their reputation over the
rights of its residents by having what appears to be a policy to lie to the public, see attached:
(Response 28 Jan 13 EA20130002). The document provides a case study of the way
complaints about bailiff malpractice are dealt with in the case of four local authorities. The
appeal aimed to establish why there was such consistency with regards councils lying to the
public in these circumstances.
Home Office Circular 47/2004

8. The Home Office Circular 47/2004 has in regards this and a previous complaint been quoted
in the context of justifying a decision not to investigate. The PSBs reply (4.2.14) contained
text taken verbatim from the publication with no reasonable argument to support why any of
the quoted content applied. Rather than providing guidance on where priority should be given
by the police, the document is being used in an arbitrary way to justify inaction. Given its
primary function is to prioritise cases for the investigation of fraud, rather than suggesting it
fell outside recommendations, the nature of the alleged fraud would appear to align with
many of those listed under the Priorities:

Frauds involving substantial sums of money. [Note: this would likely run into many
millions of pounds if fully investigated]

Frauds having a significant impact on the victim(s).

Frauds affecting particularly vulnerable victims (eg the elderly, people with
disabilities, businesses providing key services in difficult circumstances) or in
distinct communities.

Frauds giving rise to significant public concern (possibly highlighted by a high


degree of press interest).

Frauds where law enforcement action could have a material deterrent effect.

Frauds which indicate a risk of more substantial / extensive fraud occurring.

R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2

9. It was contended in DS Woods email (9.11.13) that to prove fraud had taken place, it was
necessary to demonstrate dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. The court of appeal case (R
v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2) was cited as the judgment defining dishonesty used in
criminal prosecutions and was stated, without justification, that it was viewed that the
allegation did not meet those requirements.

10. A test to define dishonesty was developed from the Ghosh case requiring (subject to the first)
two stages. The first, an objective test, where a jury would be required to decide if an act was
one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest and the second, a
subjective test where a jury would need satisfying that the accused must have realised that
what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest. The second test (subjective) is not
applied if objective test fails.
The objective test needs to be established first and the subjective test is not applied if the
objective test fails. The judgment of the Court that is material to the test is as follows:

In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting
dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards
of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest
by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails.

If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the
defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards
dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary
standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself
knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way
which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or
genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did.

11. Clearly a properly informed jury as to the facts of the case would have no difficulty
establishing the objective test. Similarly, for the reasons laid out in the letter to DS Wood
dated 24.11.13, there can be no doubt that even if councils held genuine beliefs that their
actions are morally justified, they must realise that ordinary people would consider them to
be dishonest.

Evans v South Ribble Borough Council 1992

12. The ECUs belief that no criminal offence was committed based on the Evans v South Ribble
case is misconceived for reasons laid out in letter (24.11.13) to DS Wood and in the attached
Argument to Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H. The aforesaid (attachment) contends
Counsel Opinion (David Holland QC) sought by bailiff firm, Ross & Roberts to advise them as
to the recoverability of certain charges (Head H) under the Council Tax (Administration and
Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (the Regulations). The Counsel Opinion is also attached;
see Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.

13. The ECUs decision appears based on the fact that because seized goods in the custody of
the law can either be left on the debtors premises or removed elsewhere, bailiffs do not have
to physically remove items to be entitled to impose a charge under Head H. Unfortunately,
the question is not simply about whether goods have been "seized"; it more surrounds
Parliaments intention when referring to the provision under head H (regulation 45(4)). Here it
refers clearly to goods which have been removed, because the goods shall be made
available for collection by the debtor.

Regulation 45(4) states the following:

Where an authority has seized goods of the debtor in pursuance of the distress, but
before sale of those goods the appropriate amount (including charges arising up to the
time of the payment or tender) is paid or tendered to the authority, the authority shall
accept the amount, the sale shall not be proceeded with and the goods shall be made
available for collection by the debtor.

Though there is reference to seized goods, this can not refer to goods which have been left
on the debtors premises such as is the case where a walking possession agreement has
been entered into. The reference to seized goods can only refer to goods which have been
physically removed and can be made available for collection by the debtor.

Fraudulent charges (not addressed) regarding vehicle attendance

14. The matter of head C charges (attendance with a vehicle) has been omitted in all the
responses from Humberside Police. For reference to the issues there is attached Argument
to Opinion - Head C. Similarly as in the charges under Head H, the aforesaid contends
Counsel Opinion (Alastair Tomson QC) which appears to have been sought by a Local
Authority to advise them as to the recoverability of Head C charges under the Regulations.

Magistrates Court abetting NELC in NNDR/Council Tax summons costs Fraud

15. Several documents were sent to the ECU comprising evidence of residents/charge payers
being defrauded by the council (abetted by Grimsby Magistrates Court) by way of Council
Tax and Business rates court summons costs. In all responses from Humberside Police none
of the issues were addressed.

Home visit by Detective Inspector Welton in 2009

16. It is clear from the PSBs letter (4.2.14) that Humberside Police believe that a visit was made
to my home in 2009 where an explanation was given for the reasons why previous
allegations were not of a criminal nature. That this would be recorded as fact, when untrue,
raises serious concerns about the reliability of procedures involving communications in the
force. Naturally the reasons for this happening require investigating.
Page 1 of 1

From: "Calvert, Christine 1487" <Christine.Calvert@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: "' '" < . @btopenworld.com>
Cc: <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; "Wood, Michael 1202" <Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>;
<Eric.Pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk>; <Professional.Standards@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 26 February 2014 09:26
Subject: RE: CO19/14 (RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATION)

Mr ,

I refer to the letter I sent to you.

Humberside Police are not going to investigate the allegations you have made as there is no evidence of criminal
offences.

Chris Calvert
T/Detective Inspector 1487
Major Crime Unit Tackling Serious Crime: Supporting Investigations

 Humberside Police, PO Box 515, Hull, HU9 9FT

Phone: 01482 578941 (ext 6941)


 Mobile: 07794729685

email;Christine.calvert@humberside.pnn.police.uk

From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>


To: "' '" < . @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 26 February 2014 14:55
Subject: IPCC Ref: 2014/023292

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) with your emails dated 25
and 26 February 2014.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police
complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for
considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.

Our role at this stage would be to forward your complaint to the relevant police force. If you are not happy with
the polices decision on recording your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.

As your emails have already been sent to the Professional Standards Department there will be no further action by
us. Your emails will be filed under reference 2014/023292.

Kind regards

Joe Kosub
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
01/04/2017
Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>


To: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 February 2014 15:41
Subject: Re: IPCC Ref: 2014/023292

Dear Mr Kosub

Thank you for your reply. To clarify the position regarding my complaint, I think it best that I say now that
Humberside Police's Professional Standards Branch has already dealt with my complaint.

It was recorded on 14 January 2014 as an "Organisational decision" (Direction and Control) and a response
sent dated 4 February 2014.

However, I have looked at the case (North Yorkshire Police Authority v IPCC (Jordan) 2010) and I'm left in no
doubt that the force has wrongly classified the complaint.

A Direction and Control decision, as you will know, leaves me with no right of appeal (Paragraph 5(2)
Schedule 14 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011). My latest correspondence has detailed
the position regarding wrongly recording my complaint and the ball put back in their court.

I have received a response today from Humberside Police which simply states the following:

"I refer to the letter I sent to you.

Humberside Police are not going to investigate the allegations you have made as there is no
evidence of criminal offences."

Yours sincerely

From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>


To: < . @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 05 March 2014 17:04
Subject: Your IPCC Reference: 2014/023292

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) dated 26
February 2014.

I note that you believe your complaint has been incorrectly defined as a Direction and Control
Matter. It would be helpful for us to find out where you are within the complaints process. Could you
please confirm whether your complaint has been investigated and if so, have you been given a formal
outcome letter? Please send any copies of any related correspondence you have received from the
police force.

Kind regards

Bethan Meredith
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
01/04/2017
Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>


To: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 05 March 2014 20:33
Attach: police reply 12 march 2013.pdf; Emails IPCC Ref 2014-023292.pdf; police complaint reply 04
February 2014.pdf; FOI refusal 8 Feb 2013.pdf
Subject: Re: Your IPCC Ref: 2014/023292

Dear Ms Meredith

Please find my email to the IPCC below (Feb 26, 2014) which you may not
have. This confirms my complaint has already been dealt with.

Attached are relevant responses from Humberside Police and also my initial
covering letter to the Force concerning the matters raised (FOI refusal 8
Feb 2013).

Yours sincerely

----- Original Message -----

From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>


To: < . @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 07 March 2014 15:56
Subject: Re: Your IPCC Reference: 2014/023292

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 5 March 2014. It has been passed to our administration
department to consider as an appeal. They will be in touch shortly. If you have any queries please
contact our helpline on the number below.

Yours sincerely

David English
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
Phone: 0300 020 0096
Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>

01/04/2017
Page 1 of 1

From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>


To: < . @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 02 April 2014 10:18
Attach: RAB FAQ.PDF
Subject: Re: Your IPCC Reference: 2014/023292

Dear Mr

I am writing to you in relation to the appeal we received from you about Humberside's investigation
in to a complaint they deemed direction and control. I note from your appeal you were not satisfied
with their classification of your complaint as a direction and control matter.

I was allocated your appeal to assess for validity. Having considered your appeal I agree that the
matters you raised as part of your complaint were not suitable to be classified as Direction and
Control. I therefore made a recommendation to the Humberside Police Professional Standards
Department (PSD) that they re classify your complaint as a conduct complaint.

The Humberside Police have agreed to re classify your complaint. Conduct complaints give rise to
the right of appeal therefore as part of this process I asked the force to make a relevant appeal body
decision in relation to this matter. The force have advised that they are the relevant appeal body to
assess any appeals you make. It is the force, not the IPCC, who decide which organisation should be
the relevant appeal body.

The law explains that if an appeal is made to the IPCC and the relevant appeal body is the force, the
IPCC must forward the appeal to them to consider. The IPCC must also tell the person who made the
appeal that it has done this.

In light of this I have forwarded your appeal to Humberside Police for them to consider. Please
contact them should you wish to provide more information.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter.

Kind regards

Bethan Meredith
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
North Region - Sale
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 OBW

Phone: 0300 020 0096


Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk<mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/>
IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police
complaints<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/statutory-guidance>

01/04/2017
Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU55SF
Tel No: 01482 578343
Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101

Communities, Criminals
This matter is being dealt with by:
Detective Inspector Calvert

psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

CO 19/14/SB 1 May 2014

Mrt-'
3'
GRIMSB
North East Lincolnshire
DN32 0(' I

Dear~_

I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the complaint you made on 24


November 2013 that was initially deait with as an Organisationai Complaint.
However, as a result of your appeal to the Independent Police Complaints
Commission this has since been recorded as a complaint against an individual; that
a decision was made not to investigate an allegation of fraud. This has been
assessed as being suitable to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution.

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.
I am in receipt of a large amount of correspondence from you and Detective
Sergeant Wood which I have examined in great detail. I am aware that your
allegations are that of fraud against Rossendale's bailiffs and the North East
Lincolnshire Council.

I have also liaised with Detective Inspector Welton, who dealt with the same
complaint you made to Humberside Police in 2009. You may recall he visited you at
your home and explained the reasons why your allegations were not of a criminal
nature.

In making the decision whether to investigate an allegation of fraud I have to bear in


mind the Home Office guidelines documented in the circular number 47 of 2004.
The decision on whether or not to investigate an allegation of fraud and the
resources to be devoted to any investigation rest solely with the police.

The police will only investigate in circumstances where there are good grounds to
believe that a criminal offence has been committed. In some cases some form of
preliminary inquiry may assist the police in determining whether the case is suitable
for full investigation.
In making this decision the police will have regard to the resources available,
government and local priorities, and the competing priorities of other fraud and
criminal cases already under investigation.

I also have to consider whether it would be more appropriate for this matter to be
referred to the appropriate regulatory body to deal with the allegations.

DS Wood carried out extensive research into your submission. He also met with
members of the Council Tax Department at the North East Lincolnshire Council and
has spoken with their counterparts at the Hull City Council.

The council have made no report of criminal wrongdoing by the bailiffs.

Therefore my decision still stands; Humberside Police will not be pursuing an


investigation into this matter for the reasons outlined in DS Woods's email dated 9th
November 2013.
Whilst there are some differences between the officer's explanation and your
account, I do not question your genuine belief and perception of the incident.
However, I hope the explanation provided by the officer and myself goes some way
towards allaying your sense of grievance.

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.

I have also enclosed for your information a Fact Sheet entitled "Appealing against
the Local Resolution Process." This document explains how you may appeal to the
Humberside Police Appeal Body in respect of the outcome of the Local Resolution
process.

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 IPCC 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 Humberside
Police Appeal Body before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day is 29 May 2014.
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

Tllnsp Calvert

2
Page 1 of 1

From: "Calvert, Christine 1487" <Christine.Calvert@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: < . @btopenworld.com>
Cc: "Banks, Sally 8963" <Sally.Banks@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "Wood, Michael 1202"
<Michael.Wood@humberside.pnn.police.uk>;
Sent: 26 June 2014 14:03
Attach: Local_Resolution_KeyFacts[1].pdf
Subject: (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Mr ,

Further to your appeal to the IPCC that your complaint should not have been recorded as an organisational
complaint.

The IPCC have upheld your complaint.

Therefore, the same complaint has now been recorded to be dealt with by way of the Local Resolution
procedure in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002,as amended by the Police reform and Social
Responsibility Act 2011 and IPCC Statutory Guidance on Complaint Handling.

I attach a copy of the leaflet "key facts;local resolution" for your information.

Local Resolution is appropriate in this case as there will be no criminal or misconduct proceedings taken
against any Police Officers who investigated your initial complaint.

As the resolving Officer,I agree to review the findings of DS Wood which included his meetings with North
East Lincolnshire and Hull City Council.

I will also review the legislation and any case law surrounding your complaint.

I will respond to you in writing detailing my findings in this case at the end of this process.

If you decide to have your complaint dealt with by Local Resolution, you will need to sign a declaration to
show that you are happy with the agreed process.

In signing the declaration you agree to the following points which I have explained in this e mail;

Reason why the complaint qualifies for local resolution


Purpose of local resolution
That your consent is not required for the process to be utilised
You are aware that there is a right of appeal against the process and outcome
The case will be closed after the process has been completed
No disciplinary action will be taken against the person complained against in relation to the conduct
that is subject of the local resolution
The process will be conducted by DI Calvert
That you will be given a copy of the record of the outcome
That any statements made during the process about the subject of the local resolution will be
inadmissible in any criminal, disciplinary or civil proceedings

You will not be able to change your mind once you have signed the agreement and the process for Local
Resolution has begun.

I will write to you in due course once I have reviewed your allegation,

Regards,

Chris Calvert
Detective Inspector 1487
Major Crime Unit Tackling Serious Crime: Supporting Investigations

01/04/2017