You are on page 1of 4

Page 1 of 2

Xxx
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:

"Xxx" <xxx.xxxxx@gmail.com>
"SPOC PCC" <PCC@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
"Harvey, Allan 5521" <Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries"
<enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; <judi.heaton@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
01 August 2016 14:10
Police complaint - 13 July 2016.pdf
Complaint - Chief Constable of Humberside Police

Dear Mr Hunter
Complaint Chief Constable of Humberside Police
I'm writing in connection with the outcome of my complaint (CO 282/16/AH) that was dealt with under the
Local Resolution process. Though I note the deadline by which I'm entitled to submit an appeal is 11 August
2016 I have decided not to pursue this as it would, with almost all certainty be a waste of time. It is a foregone
conclusion that commencing such a procedure would lead, once having being processed through the usual
administration to another unacceptable outcome (as on previous occasions).
It is simply indefensible that Humberside Police should choose to take its solicitor's wrong advice to obstruct a
crime being investigated in circumstances where;
i) the offender is known,
ii) allegations have been proven beyond all doubt, and
iii) failure to investigate leaves the offender at liberty to continue causing the victim injustice.
It is inexcusable that the force has ignored representations concerning that incorrect advice and is why I am
now complaining about the Chief Constable as the person having overall responsibility for endorsing/allowing
such gross negligence.
Outcome letter (13 January 2016) to the Local Resolution process (Ref: CO/461/15)
I have assumed that the letter referred to in the attached outcome response as one dated 6 January 2016 is in
fact the letter relating to complaint ref: CO/461/15 (13 January 2016). The following is the content in the
outcome letter relating to legal advice sought from the Force Solicitors in respect of the issue of complaint:
"I understand that this matter has been heard in a court of law. The advice I have obtained is that the
issues you raise may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings.
Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the
court themselves."
Representations submitted on 3 May 2016 to the Professional Standards Branch concerning the above
content alerted the force that the police do not have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury
(Humberside police's claim), as was the view of the Crown Prosecution Service. Its website states under
heading "Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury":
"Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can
recommend that there should be a police investigation.
The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation."
The assessment of the appeal to the Local Resolution outcome dated 8 June 2016 indicates that the 3rd May
representations had been ignored (other than itemised in appeal grounds), which is an approach consistent
with a previous assessment (CO/19/14).

10/08/2016

Page 2 of 2

The 8 June assessment also failed to address representations made both on the 3rd May and in appeal form
(25 January 2016) regarding issues which may be raised in a subsequent appeal. To reiterate, any such
appeal would involve civil proceedings and concern a challenge to the relevant legislation governing Council
Tax administration and/or enforcement, therefore, representations involving criminal law would not be
considered appeal points that could be raised in civil proceedings.
Ignored representations also included the "suitability test for Local Resolution" and having no regard for the
"Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015" which if considered correctly would have determined the complaint
unsuitable for Local Resolution. It was also stressed that the person against whom the complaint was directed
should be the Chief Constable so that any investigation would not be undertaken by the force itself.
I'll be clear that if the force institutes complaints about any officers associated with the failings referred to in
this correspondence (other than Chief Constable) I will not engage in the process which I presume is laid
down under the Police Reform Act 2002 etc.
My complaint categorically concerns the Chief Constable, being the person with overall responsibility for the
failings.
Consequences of the failure
By looking the other way when the matter brought to its attention, Humberside Police has enabled North East
Lincolnshire Council (NELC) unobstructed to make further fraudulent demands by appointing bailiffs
Rossendales (a firm proved to have committed fraud 'en masse') to enforce the liability order that was
obtained by lying to the court about money that is not owed.
The Councils Revenues & Benefits service had not as you would have expected considered it a narrow
escape to have got away with being the subject of a criminal investigation, but emboldened it to take further
liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue taking steps to recover the sum. It can only
reasonably be assumed that because it was ultimately the judge's responsibility for granting permission the
council would deem it appropriate to exploit that decision regardless of being aware it was not entitled to the
sum being pursued.
Meanwhile, the fraudulent charges continue increasing (currently around 540) and the bailiff firm does not
intend to cease enforcement on account of the monies not being owed. It is likely when the bailiffs have to
refer the case back to the Council on being unsuccessful, the Council will only have available to it under the
fraudulently obtained order the option of committal. It is considered the police are complicit as its failure has
enabled NELC to commit crime against a taxpayer by the fraudulent use of the Magistrates' court and
should be held ultimately responsible for the circumstances which could realistically lead to false
imprisonment.
Given that the evidence raises no possible doubt as to the allegations, it is simply indefensible that
Humberside Police should rely on its obviously wrong solicitor's advice, especially when during the previous
appeal process representations concerning that incorrect advice were submitted and subsequently ignored.
I would like confirmation that this complaint will be recorded and dealt with appropriately as one made against
the Chief Constable of Humberside Police.
Your sincerely

X. Xxxx

10/08/2016

NOT PROTECTIVELY MA

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF
Switchboard: 101
Tel 01482 576101
Fax 01482 305004
This matter is being dealt with by:
Inspector 5521 Harvey
Hessle Police Station
psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

CO 282/16/AH

13 July 2016

Mr
Grimsby

Dear Mr.

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 our attention. This has been passed to me to assess and respond to you.
Your allegation has been assessed to be one falling under the category of neglect or
failure in duty and has been assessed by the Professional Standards Branch as
being a complaint that can be dealt with under the Local Resolution process.
I note by your response to my recent e-mail that you would support the Local
Resolution process.
I have spoken to Sergeant Smithey and made him aware of your dissatisfaction. He
stated that he received basic notification of your complaint from our Professional
Standards Branch and he then attempted to ring you to discuss the matter. He could
not speak to you via the phone and as such, he gave you generic advice regarding
any evidence to support your claim.
I believe that this advice is reasonable in the circumstances. Humberside Police do
not have any general policies regarding amnesty from prosecution. Once the full
details of your complaint became apparent, the advice changed to the same as I
supplied you in a letter dated 6 January 2016.
I have enclosed for you 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

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

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 11 August 2016.
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