Thought it might be worth giving the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner a shot.

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside

Pacific Exchange

40 High Street

Hull

HU1 1PS

02/01/13

Dear Mr .......

Re: Negligence in Humberside Police’s handling of crime allegations

I trust now Humberside Police is held to account by an elected Commissioner, the voting public will have a more effective means of seeking redress than when the ‘now defunct’ appointed Police Authority was responsible.

I complained to the Chief Constable regarding the Economic Crime Section’s handling of allegations of fraud by North East Lincolnshire Council and its bailiff contractor Rossendales. The complaint was escalated to the Police Authority after the force failed to take it seriously. This was subsequently fobbed-off, and ultimately, the Police Authority’s Chief Executive refused to correspond further on issues I’d raised.

With regards bailiffs, thieving, or attempting to thieve from an alleged debtor while enforcing a liability order for a local authority, it would be understandable if thrown into confusion on learning that the view of a Police Authority was:

it is not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances

 

Although completely outrageous for a chief executive of a Police Authority to state that an investigation into an alleged crime is not a matter for the police, the response was not entirely a surprise given that the last word on this from the Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section was:

As you rightly say tens of thousands of people are in a similar position to yourself. No one other than you has argued this is a criminal matter worthy of police investigation to me during my 5 years in this post.

 

Recognition then by the police that the crime is as prevalent as I would suggest, but also it seems is considered so trivial to be tolerated, even though nationwide the amounts involved will be millions of pounds.

I’m hoping these concerns will be looked into by the Commissioner. I can provide all references to the IPCC, Discipline and Complaints section of Humberside Police etc. etc., as these are retained on file. I will therefore only briefly outline events as have occurred subsequent to North East Lincolnshire Council recklessly instructing its contractor to pursue me for an alleged debt.

Smmary

The authority obtained a liability order for non-payment of council tax despite full payment being made each month. Rossendales bailiffs were instructed to collect an outstanding sum which was entirely paid off by the time they began pursuing it.

Hundreds of pounds were added by Rossendales, this prompted research into what fees they could lawfully charge. As fraud was suspected the police were subsequently informed. The police's economic crime section concluded the attempted fraud was a civil matter to be taken up with the council. The authority lied its way through the formal complaints procedure, taking Rossendales side, on the basis they are governed by some national code of practice.

The council’s Chief Executive ultimately made the decision not to uphold allegations of fraud, making him complicit to the crime. To lie and deceive residents then could be viewed as a term of employment in obtaining his remuneration of around £200K a year.

The Local Government Ombudsman was then contacted with the naive assumption they'd investigate and put things right. They proved equally corrupt and after several months did nothing. On researching further, it’s discovered that Rossendales, like other private bailiff firms contracted to councils, are notorious for defrauding householders pursued by councils.

With this, and other information obtained through the council's complaints, there’s confirmation that several fraud attempts were made by Rossendales. New evidence was submitted to the police, and again this was fobbed off with several excuses for not allowing an investigation. Naively this was escalated to the IPCC, who proved as corrupt as the council, police and LGO.

Legislation provides under council tax regulations for complaints to be put before the court for challenging unlawful levies. The hearing was all set, but for a last minute discovery of a clause in the legislation which meant the complaint was time barred as a consequence of the months wasted with the police, council and LGO.

Corruption didn't stop at the LGO, police and council; it extended to the county court where a bent Judge found that the bailiff’s fitness was not in question after being presented with evidence of the fraudulent way he'd imposed charges.

The next action should have nailed the bailiff, at least if the organisation responsible (ICO) for breaches of the Data Protection Act functioned as it should.

Letters left by the bailiff, categorised as "of a sensitive nature" (threatening to remove goods) were left available for any member of the public passing. The ICO was contacted, who, after spending several months, determined Rossendales were not in breach of the Act.

A distinct pattern became evident – no public body is likely to uphold a complaint made about another public body. Another clue for why such cover-ups and corruption exists within these organisations is that Rossendales is effectively an appendage to the Ministry of Justice.

The Magistrates’ court played a major role in the fiasco which followed.

Records were requested, after discovering very dubious practices in liability order applications. Another breach of the Data Protection Act followed when the court carelessly sent personal details of other council taxpayers, including account numbers. Again the ICO was alerted and again no formal action was taken. A consequence of the breach resulted in another's details mistakenly submitted with bank payments for council tax instalments. Despite all payments being made on time they were paid into another person's account and consequently Rossendales were instructed again. The corrupt organisations were all given another chance to redeem themselves but all failed miserably to prove they were truly independent and unbiased.

Yours sincerely

Perhaps a shorter toned down letter is more likely to catch a bite. I suspect that the Commissioner will look at the allegations made and decide that all complaints have been looked into previously, therefore there is no scope for them to reopen the matters raised.

I would personally just keep the letter related to the Police and how they look into complaints about public bodies, for which they don't appear to consider they have a role.

If you concentrate on the pure criminal elements, that were glossed over, and also that the judge could be described as naiive rather than bent, as he would likely trust bailiffs to follow the law rather than acft in the criminal manner they have proved to do on a regular basis. from where he is sitting again he will complacently think that as they are part of "the system" they are squeaky, even when covered in excrement.

I see the points you're making, but I doubt, whichever way it's worded, any more success will be had with the commissioner than the police Authority. I've just noticed the commissioner's postal address is identical to the police authority and on further investigation found out the Chief Executive of Humberside Police Authority is now Chief Executive of the 'Office of Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside'.

Also some signs of things to come in these couple of letters.

What about a mention to the lack of police training in bailiff matters and the fact they consider threats, intimidation and violence on the public to be 'civil' cases?

The problem is that certificated bailiffs have mislead the police so frequently by pretending to be court bailiffs, as they did in the Annette case, the police now believe they are dealing with court officials and, therefore, have to tread carefully. Also, I have no doubt that certificated bailiffs have told police officers that it is a civil matter and to keep their noses out of it. That has to be stamped on firmly and the police put fully in the picture as to the fact they are being lied to and unwittingly having their professional integrity and impartiality compromised by what are, basically, criminals holding a court-issued certificate. There needs to be more stringent checks made on candidates for bailiff certificates, including Enhanced Disclosure CRB checks and when a bailiff applies to a court for a certificate, checks should be made with other courts to see that they have not had their certificate revoked and they are trying to obtain a certificate by misleading a different court to the one that revoked their certificate. This could be accommodated by a change of policy at the MoJ and keeping disqualified bailiffs on the register with the words "Certificate Revoked" in the Employer column. There also needs to be a change of policy so that new registrations, renewals and revocations are on the register and available to the public within 48 hours maximum.

An up-date

After prompting acknowledgement to the letter of 2nd January 2013 (#201), the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner has replied today with a message saying a response was prepared yesterday and will be posted out tonight. Incidentally this comes from the same person who dealt with a related correspondence with the 'then' Humberside Police Authority. The Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner is also the same person as held that position when the Police Authority existed.

And on a similar theme:

Members of the public where given the opportunity to quiz the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside in a live web-chat last Tuesday. Several questions were put to him on the subject of bailiffs and concerns that the force generally dismissed allegations of crime. A couple of responses were given as follows:

Contributor A

Commissioner said

Any person who believes they have been the subject of an assault should report this and it should be properly investigated. If you feel the matter has not been properly dealt with there is a complaints procedure that you can follow.

Contributor B

Commissioner said

All complaints are overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and checks made on the quality of the investigations. In addition there is a right of appeal to the IPCC. The most serious complaints are undertaken directly by the IPCC or directly supervised by their staff. The advent of PCCs has provided an additional effective layer of supervision that whilst not a direct method of complaining does allow correction of unacceptable practices.

The following questions where submitted but went unanswered:

PCC's are generally not going to get involved in these mattters, as they are mostly political people, who get paid partly from council tax revenues. They will leave it up to the Police, CPS and Courts.

PCC's are generally not going to get involved in these mattters, as they are mostly political people, who get paid partly from council tax revenues. They will leave it up to the Police, CPS and Courts.

Yes! It seems you were right .

Same old blanco being liberally applied then as per usual. (Blanco a brand of whitewash, much loved in millitary establishments for hiding the coal from a visiting generals gaze)

Same old blanco being liberally applied then as per usual. (Blanco a brand of whitewash, much loved in millitary establishments for hiding the coal from a visiting generals gaze)

Los oficiales les gustan sus blancos...

Los oficiales les gustan sus blancos...

:lol:

I think it safe to say the Commissioner has responded in a manner you'd expect anyone in his position wanting to ensure the best chance of surviving in the top job. For deflecting concerns which would otherwise cause the government inconvenience, expense and embarrassment, he will no doubt consider the salary paid him for making this decision well spent.

The irony of all this is the Commissioner refers to the previous dealing of the complaint through the 'now defunct' Police Authority, where he comments "you have been through the legal and complaints processes and I'm afraid that I do not have the power to act outside those processes". In all probability this response has been formulated by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner which is in fact the Police Authority in all but name.

How can you take any decision seriously when the Chief Executive of that organisation states – in regards bailiffs, defrauding alleged debtors while enforcing liability orders for local authorities – that "it is not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances"

A couple of points are well worth mentioning here. One of the many excuses given by the Detective Inspector at Humberside Police's Economic Crime Section for not investigating Rossendales, was that the "Home Office circular 47/2004 provides the Home Office guidance on where priority should be given by the police."

In this guidance it is clear that the type of fraud we're dealing with here qualifies under several of the listed priorities for investigation:

• 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.

 

The other point deals with a statement made by the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with a recent $2.3bn Bank fraud prosecution.

The deputy head of fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

'The CPS Central Fraud Division are pleased to have brought this case so quickly to conclusion, with the trial opening one year to the day after the case was reported to City of London Police. This is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the whole prosecution team.

 

'People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.'

"The CPS Central Fraud Division are pleased to have brought this case so quickly to conclusion, with the trial opening one year to the day after the case was reported to City of London Police. This is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the whole prosecution team.

'People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.'

The additional wording should have been: Unless the perpatrators of the fraud are a Government Organisation, Local Authotity And Their Agents, who are exempt from prosecution under the Fraud Act, as they are collecting debts to government, so the end justifies the means!.

If they had put that we wuold know that the systenm is bent. Well we know that already,