Appealing against the police

Investigation into your complaint

Internal Use Only

We must receive your appeal 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
specify) .

Mrs

Miss

Ms

Other (please

First name: (Please write clearly)

Surname: (Please write clearly)

Your address:
X
X
Daytime telephone number:

Postcode: X
Evening telephone number:

N/A

N/A

Email address:
X.com

___________________________________________________
Date you made your complaint:

Reference number ( if known ):

24 November 2013

CO 19/14/SB1

Please give the date of the letter you received about the outcome of the investigation.
1 July 2015

Please tell us why you are appealing against the investigation into your complaint by
selecting one or more reason(s) below. Please tick the relevant boxes:
Do you feel you were not given enough information about what the investigation into
your complaint found or the action the appropriate authority plan to take following their
investigation?
Do you disagree with the findings of the appropriate authority investigation into your
complaint?
Do you disagree with the proposed action resulting from the appropriate authority
investigation into your complaint?
Do you disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made about
whether an officer you complained about has a case to answer or if there has been
unsatisfactory performance?
Do you disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made not to
refer the investigation of your complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service?

Please explain why you want to appeal based on the reason(s) selected above,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary.
Introduction
There is an overall sense from dealing with Humberside Police on related matters since
2009 that the force has an inability to deal openly and honestly with the public. I will
make it known now that there are a number of people who I consider have been grossly
negligent over this period against whom I wish to bring charges of Misconduct in Public
Office, including those outside the force namely the former Chief Executive of
Humberside Police Authority and Humberside's Police and Crime Commissioner.
To give a flavour of what I'm getting at, it was stated in the letter dated 4 February 2014
from DI Calvert, that she had been informed by DI Welton that in 2009 I had been
visited at my home with the reasons explaining why my allegations were not of a
criminal nature. This was completely untrue as there was no visit then and there has
been no visit since.
Despite a letter 25 February 2014 (Annex A, para 16) addressed to DI Calvert clearly
pointing out that the claim of a visit was untrue, the same statement was reiterated in a
revised letter sent by the unit dated 1 May 2014. There was no explanation of the
anomaly and nothing has been forthcoming since. This in my opinion characterises the
force for being one which completely ignores challenges to its findings.

Not given enough information about what the investigation found

There was no information about what the investigation found other than it being
expressed by DCI Killeen that; (i) he had reviewed all documentation, (ii) was satisfied
that DS Wood's investigation was conducted appropriately, and (iii) he (DS Woods) was
satisfied that a criminal offence had not been committed.
Clearly the above information suggests yet another layer in the cover-up to protect
North East Lincolnshire Council and its bailiff contractor, Rossendales.
The documentation which DCI Killeen claims to have reviewed contains several
correspondence contending DS Woods findings which have been completely ignored by
everyone involved. The letter dated 25 February 2014 addressed to DI Calvert
summarises the points raised at Annex A which is reproduced in its entirety below:

ANNEX A
Wrongly recorded complaint
1.

The complaint was recorded on 14.1.14 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.

Disagreeing with the findings of the investigation

There is no evidence that the facts of what I have complained about have been
investigated. Please refer to Annex A under the previous heading which summarises
the relevant issues.
Disagreeing with the proposed action resulting from the investigation into the
complaint
As it is stated that there will be no action taken by the authority resulting from the
complaint I completely disagree that this is appropriate. See under the following two
headings.
Decision that the authority has made regarding the person complained about not
having a case to answer
See also under next heading (person ultimately responsible)
It is evident there has been a concerted effort, with the improper exercise of police
powers, to deliberately and inordinately prolong investigating the allegations over a
period of eight months, only to arrive at the conclusion (with no evidence) that there had
been no criminal offence committed. Any reasonable person presented with the relevant
information would have been satisfied that the 'token' investigation was deliberately
oriented toward covering up criminal behaviour to protect North East Lincolnshire
Council and its bailiff contractor, Rossendales.
Decision made not to refer the investigation of the complaint to the CPS
I disagree with the decision not to refer the investigation of the complaint to the Crown
Prosecution Service, but in the context that it is understood that the person who is the
subject of the complaint may or may not be the person ultimately responsible. If found
that the person responsible for perverting the course of justice is not the person who is
the subject of the complaint, then it is expected that referral to the CPS would be in
respect of the person with overall responsibility (See previous for further details).
If you have any documents that support your appeal please list below or attach to them
to this form when submitting your appeal.
1) No Investigation 24 November 2013.pdf
2) police investigates itself fails 25 February 2014.pdf
3) Argument to Opinion - Head C.pdf
4) Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf
5) Argument to Ross & Roberts Opinion - Head H.pdf

___________________________________________________
Signature of the person making this appeal:

Date:
24 / 07 / 2015

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 we are reaching all
sections of society. Please describe your ethnicity using the boxes below.
WHITE
White British
White Irish
Any other White background

MIXED
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other mixed background

ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH

Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Any other Asian background

BLACK OR BLACK BRITISH

Caribbean
African
Any other Black background

OTHER ETHNIC GROUP

OTHER

Where to send this form

Humberside Police Appeals Body
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF
Email: PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk

Guidance
You can appeal if:

You have not received enough information about the findings of the investigation
or what action the police force plan to take.
At the end of its investigation into your complaint, the police force should give you a
good-quality explanation of what the investigation has found, if it intends to take any
action as a result of its findings and, if so, what action it proposes to take. It should also
tell you about your right of appeal and who this is to.
The police force may give you a copy of its investigators report in order to provide you
with this information. Alternatively, it may communicate it to you by letter or email.
You can appeal if you think that the police force have not provided enough information
to enable you to understand what their investigation into your complaint found or what
action it intends to take because of it.
You disagree with the findings of the investigation.
The police investigation into your complaint will gather evidence in order to establish the
facts of what you have complained about.
These facts are its findings. You need to keep in mind that the police investigation will
be proportionate to the seriousness of your complaint and the likely outcomes.
You can appeal if you think that the findings of the investigation need to be
reconsidered. For example if:

some witnesses you consider important were not traced and/or interviewed
you do not think that the police properly understood what your complaint was
about
you do not think that parts of your complaint were investigated
you do not think that the evidence the police have gathered supports the
conclusions it has reached
you do not think the police have come to the right decision about whether or not
your complaint should be upheld

You disagree with the action the police force plan to take as a result of the
investigation.
When the police force tells you what their investigation has found they should also tell
you what they plan to do as a result. This may mean changes to the way the police

work; an apology and commitment to stopping the same thing happening to someone
else; or advice being given to the officer you complained about by their manager.
In some serious cases, it may mean an officer being asked to explain what they did in
formal misconduct proceedings. Alternatively, there may be reasons why the police will
take no action at all.
You can appeal if you disagree with the action that the police plan to take. For
example, if you think that:

the police have not done enough to prevent the same thing happening again
the action the police have said they will take against the person you complained
about is not right

You do not think the police have made the right decision about whether an officer
you complained about has a case to answer for misconduct, gross misconduct,
or whether their performance was unsatisfactory.
At the end of the investigation into your complaint the police will decide whether or not
the officer you complained about has a case to answer for misconduct or gross
misconduct, or whether their performance was unsatisfactory.
Misconduct means the officer has done something that fails to meet the Standards of
Professional Behaviour expected of a police officer. Gross misconduct means the failure
to meet those standards is so serious that the officer could lose their job.
Unsatisfactory performance means that the officer has failed to do their job, or does not
have the ability to do their job, to a satisfactory level. However, this behaviour does not
breach the Standards of Professional Behaviour expected of an officer.
You can appeal because the police have said that an officer does not have a case to
answer and you think they do. You can also appeal if the police have said that an officer
has a case to answer for misconduct, but you think it should be for gross misconduct.
You disagree with a decision the police force have made not to refer the
investigation of a complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
When the police force has finished their investigation into your complaint they will
decide whether to send your complaint to the CPS for consideration. The police must
send your complaint to the CPS if they think a crime may have been committed. There
may be some circumstances when it is not appropriate to do this, and the police will
decide whether this is the case.

The CPS makes decisions about whether someone accused of a crime will be
prosecuted in a criminal court. You can appeal if the police have decided not to send
your complaint to the CPS and you think they should have done.
When the police do send your complaint to the CPS, this does not necessarily mean
that the CPS will decide to prosecute an officer you have complained about. You cannot
appeal if the CPS decides not to prosecute the officer. The IPCC has no powers to
change decisions made by the CPS.
Please note: you cannot appeal if the investigation into your complaint was managed or
independently conducted by the IPCC.