Team effort – Unlawful "Head H" bailiff fees for the attention of MoJ

[outlawla]

There seems a lot of conditions attached if this agreement is signed which all appear stacked in the favour of Humberside Police.

 

From: Calvert, Christine 1487

To: 'outlawla'

Cc: Banks, Sally 8963 ; Wood, Michael 1202

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014

Subject: (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

 

Mr outlawla,

 

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

 

 

Interestingly, an email sent earlier the same day was recalled but included an additional paragraph, see below:

"

Your complaint can only be dealt with by Local Resolution if you agree to this. You cannot be forced to agree to Local Resolution and you should not feel under pressure to agree to have your complaint dealt with in this way.

This paragraph however is reproduced in the IPCC publication: "key facts; local resolution"

[unclebulgaria67]

So what are the other choices of complaint processing, if you did not want this local resolution ?

[outlawla]

So what are the other choices of complaint processing, if you did not want this local resolution ?

 

That's a good question! Will have to look into it but suspect there will be two choices – take it or leave it.

[outlawla]

So what are the other choices of complaint processing, if you did not want this local resolution ?

 

There is an answer to this: "proportionate investigation".

 

Have letter and decision to uphold appeal, however, I suspect that it will only focus its investigation on procedural errors in recording the complaint wrongly etc.

 

The correspondence ends as follows:

 

On the basis of this assessment I have decided to Uphold the appeal

___________________________________________________

ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE/APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

___________________________________________________

 

The appropriate authority is required to contact the complainant and explain that this matter is to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution and explain what that means. An agreed action plan should be drafted. If the complainant does not give consent for this matter to be dealt with by way of Local Resolution consideration should be given to conducting a proportionate investigation. The complainant should be kept updated regularly about his complaint.

[old bill]

Have you considered Misconduct In A Public Office, Outlawla?

[outlawla]

Have you considered Misconduct In A Public Office, Outlawla?

 

Since getting started on a lengthy project which has effectively been to expose corruption encountered within public bodies, and what incidentally has turned out to be rife in complaints procedures (especially bogus governing bodies) having procedures laid down in statute (LGO, IPCC, PHSO etc.), Misconduct in a public office has been mentioned in a couple of letters so far and may well appear in one or two others yet.

 

In relation to the issues outlined in this thread it has already been mentioned in a letter to The Police sent 24 November 2013, as per the quote:

 

.....Fourthly, the Police have decided it has no good grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed, based (apparently) on guidance from the home office circular 47/2004. Apart from the communiqué being obviously geared towards home office budget cuts, a force wishing to turn a blind eye to any allegation of fraud could easily do so by fitting one or a number of get-out clauses incorporated into the publication.

 

The home office is no less than abetting these firms to defraud the public by giving the body responsible for preventing it, sole discretion to allow the criminals to continue without consequence. To hold evidence of the extent to which Rossendales are defrauding the public, for no challenge to be made, there must be a strong case against the officers allowing this, for misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice....

 

Another instance, in which secretary of state for DWP, Iain Duncan Smith is being challenged on why it pressurises jobcentres with league tables, etc., in a bid to control branch managers (or insult their intelligence, depending on their intellect) in meeting sanction targets. This is mentioned at paragraph 144 of a report shortly to be submitted to the Director General of Jobcentre Plus Operations:

 

144. I require proof that a serious attempt has been made to establish whether there has been deliberate intent to cause gross inconvenience and if so by whom. If found to be the case (as the signs strongly suggests), I expect the police are forwarded details to consider the prospects of a criminal prosecution. Should the person be regarded as fulfilling a public role holding a position of trust there is no reason why he would not fit the description of ‘public officer’. As such, there must be a strong case against the person allowing this, for misconduct in public office. It can not be overstated that a person funded by the taxpayer must not be allowed to get away with using their public role to indulge in their own personal perverse gratification.

[old bill]

Outlawla,

 

There are three Common Law offences, which are still in force, and which might be useful to you -

 

1. Conspiracy to Defraud - This should not be confused with Conspiracy under Section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977, which has a narrow scope. The offence of Common Law Conspiracy to Defraud has a much wider scope and covers offences involving real estate (land and property);

 

2. Misconduct in A Public Office - Those who are at risk of falling foul of this offence include: Customs Officers, Borders Agency Staff, Local Government Officers, Civil Servants, Police Officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Judges, Highways Agency officials, DVLA staff, Driving Examiners, County Court Bailiffs;

 

3. Perverting the Course of Justice - Making a false report to the police can be enough to commit this offence. Basically, all that need happen is that the offender makes a allegation to the police that someone has committed an offence with the intention that the person be arrested and/or prosecuted or reckless as to whether they be arrested and/or prosecuted, knowing the allegation to be false or reckless as to its veracity. If the person against whom a false allegation has been made is arrested and/or prosecuted as a result, this would be aggravating factors. Perverting the Course of Justice can take other forms.

 

Take a look at CPS Legal Guidance for information on the points to prove for each offence.

 

Hopes this helps.

 

As far as the Slaphead of State for Work and Pensions goes, he needs to be pressed as to why no action is taken against JCP staff who tell claimants to not mention ages and medical conditions on job applications and threaten to sanction such claimants if they don't comply. I had someone come to me after a JCP adviser told them not to mention in a job application they were in their late 50s and had a medical condition. The claimant revealed the JCP adviser's "advice" to the prospective employer who thanked him for his honesty and revealed that failure to disclose the medical condition would have potentially invalidated his Employer's Liability Insurance, rendering him liable to a possible £70,000 fine and a criminal record to boot. Notwithstanding, the claimant could also have been prosecuted for Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information.

[outlawla]

.....Take a look at CPS Legal Guidance for information on the points to prove for each offence.

 

Hopes this helps....

 

Thanks old bill! Useful references.

 

I suppose this the relevant webpage (CPS) for one of the offences:

 

Misconduct in Public Office

[old bill]

You're welcome, Outlawla.

 

The important bits are under the main heading Definition of The Offence. This shows the elements that have to be present in order to provide grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed and the points to prove in order to provide grounds for prosecution and conviction.

 

The link you have posted is, indeed, the relevant webpage for one of the offences I mentioned.

[outlawla]

Still waiting for the outcome of the investigation into the complaint about police conduct.

 

EDIT:

 

If anyone remembers the issues regarding the old fees for attending to remove goods when no goods were removed, the document below – if known about at the time – would have cleared up much of the confusion as to when the fee could be lawfully applied.

 

It seems councils were negligent in defending their contractors.

 

Milton Keynes Code of practice – page 16.

 

For attending to remove goods when no goods are removed.

 

Notes:

 

This fee will only be charged provided that the vehicle used is sufficient to remove all the goods previously seized.

 

Reasonable fees and expenses incurred but not exceeding £75.00 for attending to remove household goods at domestic dwellings.

[outlawla]

No contact from Humberside Police (since 27 August 2014) regarding appeal against its various failings.

 

 

HUMBERSIDE POLICE APPEAL BODY

Police Headquarters

Priory Road

Hull.....

 

 

27 August 2014

 

Dear Mr .........

 

This letter is about your appeal against Humberside Police which was determined on 6 August 2014. I am writing to advise you that your complaint will be referred to Temporary Detective Chief Inspector Reed who will be in contact with you in due course. Unfortunately T/DCI Reed is currently on leave and is not due back in the office until 2 September 2014 and this letter is simply to apologise for the delay in responding to you and to notify you that T/DCI Reed will be in contact.

 

Humberside Police Appeals Body

 

 

This is why the IPCC is wrong to delegate the job of investigating a complaint against the police to the police force itself.

 

There should be a charge a taxpayer can bring against a police force equivalent to "wasting Police time".

[lookinforinfo]

Polite letter to the Police asking if they have tried to contact you in case they have should get a reaction from them. If they have done nothing then complain to

the IPCC asking that they take over or delegate another force to intervene.

[outlawla]

Polite letter to the Police asking if they have tried to contact you in case they have should get a reaction from them. If they have done nothing then complain to

the IPCC asking that they take over or delegate another force to intervene.

 

Ordinarily that would be the course of action to take, but this force is a law unto itself.

 

Contacting the IPCC in the first instance would speed things up by around 6 months.

 

It could be that Humberside Police have an arrangement in place to restrict contact that I'm oblivious to. I'm sure there's pressure on the police not to pursue a case that might impact on the effectiveness of bailiff operations. I'm certain this has happened with HM Court Service regarding the Magistrates court pulling out all the stops to prevent a case I'm trying to get into the High Court.

[outlawla]

From: outlawla

To: "!enquiries"

Sent: December 19, 2014

Subject: Re: IPCC ref. 2014/023292

 

Dear IPCC

 

Re: IPCC ref. 2014/023292

 

I'm writing in connection with complaint reference 2014/023292 involving Humberside Police failing to take allegations of fraud seriously and the force subsequently mishandling complaints against it in regards that failure.

 

The IPCC have explained to me (email April 27 2014) that the force itself will be considering my appeal against the outcome to the complaint and that the IPCC would not be able to intervene. However, I hope that the organisation may now intervene considering the force's continued failure in meeting its obligation to the taxpayer. There is still no outcome to the appeal and expect that it is the forces intention never to investigate the matter.

 

The last contact regarding the appeal was a letter dated 27 August 2014 from Humberside Police which was to advise that the complaint would be referred to a named Detective Chief Inspector who would be in contact in due course.

 

We are almost 4 months on from that date and no further contact from Humberside Police has been made. It therefore looks like we're dealing with much more than the public body's negligence in serving the taxpayer and wrongly recording complaints in a bid to prevent a taxpayer escalating concerns. We appear to have an out of control rogue police force in Humberside and I welcome the organisations view to my recommendation that a thorough investigation into the forces policies and procedures is undertaken.

 

I would also ask if you could confirm holding records of emails sent to the IPCC's '!enquiries' address, and possibly '!NorthCasework' and if so provide the contents as many of my emails in relation to these matters have disappeared from my system. Although no longer having the email I have found details sufficiently reliable to satisfy myself that one was sent to the '!enquiries' address on 16 April 2014.

 

Although unlikely and there is no way I could check, the disappearance of files and a disproportionate amount of data being transferred from my system through the internet is bound to makes one wonder if this is more than just coincidence, especially when you consider the false statement with regards a fictitious visit by one of its Detective Inspectors to my home to explain the reasons why the allegations were not of a criminal nature.

 

As I have mentioned already I would like the organisations view to my recommendation that a thorough investigation into the forces policies and procedures is undertaken. There is no doubt in my mind that the overall person responsible for this fiasco should be answering to charges of Misconduct in Public Office.

 

Yours sincerely

 

outlawla

 

P.S. Concerning your suggestion to contact the Chief Constable or the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside I have already had disappointing responses from taking these routes. As you would probably imagine, both merely hide behind the dysfunctional statutory process which police forces have of course mastered ways to exploit to their advantage.

[outlawla]

The response from the Independent Police Complaints Commission is as expected. You can only reasonably conclude that this is just another bogus taxpayer funded watchdog organisation that is complicit in assisting one public body cover for another. In this case that means Humberside police and North East Lincolnshire council.

 

From: "!enquiries"

To: outlawla

Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014

Subject: Re: IPCC ref. 2014/023292

 

Dear Mr outlawla

 

Thank you for you email to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) dated 19 December 2014.

 

As advised previously, the IPCC is not the relevant appeal body for your complaint so we are unable to intervene in the appeals process. We have therefore forwarded your email on to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Humberside Police for them to respond to you. As you are experiencing delays with the handling of your appeal, you may find it useful to contact the Chief Constable of the force or your local Police and Crime Commissioner, either of whom may be able to intervene in some way.

 

Your request for records of emails received from you has been forwarded to our Freedom of Information team.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Customer Contact Advisor

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

[outlawla]

From: outlawla

To: "!enquiries"

Sent: January 21, 2015

Subject: Re: IPCC ref. 2014/023292

 

Dear IPCC

 

 

Further to my 19 December 2014 email, I still await Humberside Police to make contact regarding the appeal, as it stated it would on 27 August 2014.

 

You have reiterated that the IPCC is unable to intervene in the appeals process as it is not the relevant appeal body for my complaint. I am aware that the IPCC's procedures are governed by statute and the law has been enacted to remove all rights of the taxpaying public in matters of complaint against the police. There is however a conflict in law with the governing body, funded by public money, turning a blind eye to corruption, merely on account of the law being written to allow it.

 

The IPCC may consider compliance with the statutory complaints procedure is enough to avoid being legally challenged, but there is no avoiding the fact that in its knowledge, the public body is complicit in aiding Humberside Police to cover up corruption by looking the other way and blindly applying statute.

 

The message being sent here is quite simply that it is acceptable for the public to be defrauded so long as it is on behalf of the government.

 

As advised previously, I have been unsuccessful in resolving issues when previously contacting the Commissioner and Chief Constable. I believe doing so again would be futile and is why my communication is with the IPCC.

 

The Police & Crime Commissioner is tasked with cutting the police's budget and to obsessively do so. The Chief Constable's role appears indistinguishable from that of the P&CC. The only noticeable difference is that one of them, the public can theoretically vote out and the other, it can't. It is therefore clearly not in the interest of either of them to act in a way that impacts negatively on the budget.

 

Lastly, there has been no disclosure from your Freedom of Information team regarding the missing emails.

 

I await any suggestions you have to resolve this situation.

 

Your sincerely

[outlawla]

The IPCC's responses are becoming more pathetic each time. The latest reply (a different Customer Contact Advisor) makes certain that the IPCC in no way acts in the public's interest or holds the police to account.

 

 

From: "!enquiries"

To: outlawla

Sent: January 27, 2015

Subject: IPCC ref. 2014/023292

 

Dear Mr outlawla

 

Thank you for your email dated 21 January 2015.

 

I note from the content of your email that you understand that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) cannot intervene in an ongoing appeal process and/or complaint investigation. I have also considered that your request for records of emails received from you has been forwarded to our Freedom of Information team, as per our email to you on 29 December 2014. I will chase this for you.

 

I hope this clarifies things for you.

 

Yours sincerely

 

J R

Customer Contact Advisor

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

It was by chance that the IPCC's Customer Contact Advisor who apparently sent today's fob-off email came up in an article:

 

And another IPCC whitewash!

[outlawla]

In light of the thread posted yesterday regarding the bailiff attack which highlighted the police bias towards the establishment, this has reminded me to up-date the matters relating to the mishandling of issues raised with Humberside Police's fraud department.

 

The briefest summary of the most recent events:

 

1) The force wrote on 9 November 2013 outlining why it had taken the decision not to investigate the allegations, despite the evidence supplied.

 

2) On 24 November 2013 complained about the department's decision not to investigate North East Lincs Council/Rossendales in the matter of allegations made.

 

3) 4 February 2014 Head of Department wrote supporting the decision not to investigate, adding that there was no right of appeal against the outcome as it was recorded as an organisational issue (Direction and Control) not a "Conduct Matter".

 

4) Wrote IPCC/Humberside police 25 February 2014 complaining about the force wrongly recording complaint (in order to remove any right to appeal).

 

5) IPCC wrote on 2 April 2014 upholding the complaint and agreed that the matters raised were not suitable to be classified as Direction and Control. The force agreed to re-classify the matter as a "Conduct Matter" therefore allowing a right of appeal.

 

6) Humberside Police set out the procedure it would take in the light that there was an appeal right in a letter dated 26 June 2014.

 

7) Police wrote 27 August 2014 stating that the complaint that was upheld on 6 August would be referred to a Temporary Detective Chief Inspector who would be in contact in due course.

 

8) Contacted the IPCC 19 December 2014 (there had been no further contact since 27 August).

 

9) IPCC reiterated that it could not intervene. Last response from IPCC 27 January 2015.

 

New Events

 

10) Receive letter out of the blue 31 March 2015 to arrange convenient date and location for meeting regarding appeal. Arrangement was made for 16 April 2015 at Grimsby Police station where terms of reference agreed for the review with an update of progress by 18 May 2015.

 

11) Still awaiting an update of progress.

[old bill]

Be aware that the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 came into force on 13 April 2015. Section 26 of the Act deals, specifically, with corrupt or improper exercise of police powers and privileges. This is a link to the provision - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/26/enacted

[outlawla]

Thanks old bill for that useful link.

 

That legislation (in theory) has got to make a significant difference to the way the public are fobbed-off etc. Makes you wonder if the unexpected contact regarding the matter has something to do with the threat of a 14 year stretch for partaking in corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges.

[old bill]

I can confirm the provision is already having a desirable effect on corrupt and malfeasant police officers. Since coming into force on 13 April 2015, I know of incidents where police officers of the ranks of Constable, Sergeant and Inspector have read printouts from http://www.legislation.gov.uk.

 

Three (3) Constables' faces went white as sheets after reading printouts and they left hastily;

One (1) Sergeant nearly fell off his chair. And he wasn't laughing either;

One (1) Inspector read it and and the look on his face indicated there was a possibility he had messed himself. Another Inspector, on being made aware of the legislation, voiced concern that senior officers had not made frontline officers aware of the provision or arranged any training. This Inspector, incidentally, was a reasonable person and indicated he was going to challenge senior officers about their apparent failure to arrange training.

 

The prospect of 14 years' imprisonment is a very sobering revelation for serving police officers.

[mikeymack2002]

The use of BWV (Body Worn Video) is covered on page 27 of the attachment. Also covered is CCTV on a persons property and covers the new rules recently applied. See links for more info and the attachment for more accurate info on BWV see 7.2 on page 27-29 of the attachment...

 

 

An observation here as well. If the EA is using a BWV unit they really should not be turning it on until they have formally identified the person they are speaking to is the debtor. Also does ART. 8 come in to play when the person inside the home askes the EA to stop recording whilst in or facing into their property? To view this argument see here https://www.cctvusergroup.com/art.php?art=39

 

For using a CCTV at home see sections has a serious warning if capturing images beyond your property boundaries, with case law (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=263584)

 

 

Other links of interest below

 

 

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

 

 

http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/local/important-changes-to-law-on-home-cctv-systems-1-6787145

 

 

PDF from here https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search see under the section called CCTV code of practice

[lamma]

Thank you for this mickeymack.

It will take time to digest but one thought springs to mind immediately.

What about instances of ANPR equipped bailiff vans enforcing CPE where the bailiff is acting in their private capacity ?

Of course there is a tendency for the courts to 'overlook' many bailiff issues....

[mikeymack2002]

The scary quote was the (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documen...t=1&cid=263584) quote, it has all of the hallmarks of a great case but will not be taken notice of even with the EA and the BWV they use. All you have to do is hit a good search engine to see what is actually captured they post it to a TV show, so where does any of this actually go?

 

 

Also take into account the capturing by the CCTV cars for enforcement. I have a great one myself capturing a CEO parking illegally then thinking they were a copper and asking me what I was up to, but they failed to realise they had parked with the wrong badge in the wrong place and were dealt with accordingly.

 

 

Recording in public now appears to be heading for a bout of new legislation forbidding it unless the movie taker complies with the ICO recommendations. We will see how far this goes...

[outlawla]

.........

.........

 

9) IPCC reiterated that it could not intervene. Last response from IPCC 27 January 2015.

 

New Events

 

10) Receive letter out of the blue 31 March 2015 to arrange convenient date and location for meeting regarding appeal. Arrangement was made for 16 April 2015 at Grimsby Police station where terms of reference agreed for the review with an update of progress by 18 May 2015.

 

11) Still awaiting an update of progress.

 

It was suspected in all honesty that there was an ulterior motive for the unexpected contact by another Detective to arrange a meeting that would in some way lead to another underhand move by Humberside police. However, after attending the station and discussing the failings to be investigated it was thought eventually, the issues were going to be addressed, and the years of incompetence was just some bungling Keystone Cop thing.

 

After enquiring why the update is over a month overdue there was no reply. It therefore seems that the whole thing was a hoax.

 

There must be a point when the IPCC can no longer ignore the gross misconduct in this matter and call in the Chief Constable and Crime Commissioner. There is even a reasonable chance that the latest supposed Detective Chief Inspector is using a pseudonym and the whole stunt a sham.