Readers of this blog will know that I have, in light of the new Department for Communities and Local
Government guidelines, contacted the police again, with regard to securing a conviction against Rundles for their attempted fraud. Avon & Somerset's Legal Services Department is trying to conflate this case with the matter of my removing Rundle's clamp at a later date, even though I got my complaint in first.
The police initially refused to investigate it as they maintained it is a civil matter, but the DCLG quite clearly states that it is not - and so did I. Fraud has never been a civil matter and this is the most clear cut case of fraud I have ever seen. Had Avon & Somerset investigated properly at the time of my complaint, it would then have demonstrated the exact legal authority by which I removed the clamp and I would not be facing a bogus criminal damage charge. Instead they summarily dismissed my complaint without reviewing any of the evidence. Following their refusal to investigate I was fobbed off with the advice that I should report it via the Action Fraud website, which is essentially a black hole which issues you a crime number and that's the last you hear of it.
I let the matter rest as I decided my efforts should go into defending the criminal damage charge, however, I have had a change of heart, especially now that I have a written admission by Rundles that I was not present at the time of their alleged visits. If criminal law applies to me then it must also apply to Rundles. They have attempted a fraud, I have have proof, and an admission from Rundles. What more do they want? I removed their clamp on the basis that it was an excessive levy by legal definition, and that it was also an abandoned levy. The legality of the fees is almost immaterial to the clamping issue.
Since there is evidently a system wide directive to treat bailiff fraud as a civil matter, there is grounds for suing the police, and should they not make a proper job of it this time around, I shall do exactly that. It is a gross dereliction of duty for the police not to protect citizens from predatory bailiffs acting outside the law.
If Plod fail to act, it is a clear case of misconduct in public office, which can be the result of a positive act or a failure to act.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
I think I will have some fun with that!
ReplyDeleteAs Plod is paid from the council tax then failure to investigate the Bailiff who were acting on behalf of the council makes Council, Bailiff and Plod "jointly and severally liable". The acts of Council, Bailiff and Plod do not have to be simultaneous: they must simply contribute to the same fruad event.
ReplyDeletefailing misconduct in public office where YOU suffer an actual 'loss' or tort as a result of the action of a public official (not just a constable) you can go for misfeasance/malfeasance in public office.
ReplyDeleteI've got just such a complaint that will progress to taking a constable of Cleveland Constabulary to court (if he fails to pay under my 'conditional offer')for redress where he caused me a tort or actual financial loss as a result of exceeding his exercising a legal authority (where he had no legal authority to do so in the first place)
its a gem of a complaint backed up by considerable case law as its an offence at common law.
all I have to prove is:
That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.
The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.
That the act or conduct must have been done either:
a) maliciously; or
b) knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.
The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant.
I am just waiting for the IPCC to respond before pursuing via court but like you I expect to be fobbed off but he (the constable) can run but he can't hide from this as it something I can pursue without the need of the CPS as its deemed a 'civil matter'
misconduct in public office is a criminal matter and the CPS reserve the right to take it over (and kick such into the long grass!)