 |
| Click for full size |
If any of you thought I was exaggerating when I said the police are wilfully turning a blind eye to bailiff crime, here is the actual letter sent to me from Avon & Somerset plod. Note that not at any time did "Investigator" Peter Miller attempt to review the evidence in my possession, or even speak to me in person, or indeed examine the case notes held by Rundles. He has not been even remotely bothered to familiarise himself with the law.
He is essentially saying he's not going to look into the case because the court granted a Liability Order. He is saying fraud, intimidation and trespass against goods is fine, since in their view, a Liability Order is free licence to break the law, to any extent, without intervention by the police. He also states that only if an unrelated matter is resolved, in my favour, in court (the clamping) will he consider an investigation.
I call this corruption because I cannot think of any other word to describe it. This has too much in common with other examples of such breathtaking indifference I have seen, over the last year, to view it merely as incompetence. This adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests a high level strategic decision by the police to allow bailiff malpractice and fraud - and to throw the book at the victim if they dare to say no to fraudsters.
That'll have them scampering off to see if seditious libel is still in the recipe book.
ReplyDeleteMind you, Mr. Miller might be "offended" - heinous crime to do that.
I like to see them try.
DeleteIt appears obvious that a certain government department is pulling the strings of every Police Force to ensure none get any ideas of acting on evidence brought to their attention.
ReplyDeleteHere's evidence of Humberside Police doing as its told (Image link)
Humberside Police
Crime Management Branch
Economic Crime Unit
PO Box 515
Hull
HU9 9FT
12 March 2013
Dear Mr Tom Bola,
Thank you for your recent submissions regarding Rossendales and North East Lincolnshire Council. You have clearly gone to considerable lengths to compile this and raised some interesting points but without the detailed information, that you have tried to obtain, being made available I cannot take the matter any further.
On a cautionary note, I think that even if you had been able to gather the specific information that you requested, it would have been very difficult to demonstrate that a criminal act had been committed. For instance, we would need to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Council and/or Rossendales had acted 'dishonestly.' The definition of dishonesty used for criminal prosecutions can be found in R v Ghosh - it is quite an exacting test.
You obviously feel very strongly about these matters. However, as things stand, I think you have a greater chance of success by pursuing this as a regulatory matter rather than a criminal one.
Yours sincerely,
Detective Sergeant
Economic Crime Unit
The Detective Sergeant was right in his prediction. Even after battling with the Information Commissioner in a Tribunal and eventually gathering the specific information requested, Humberside Police chose loyalty to its employer (the government, not the other employer, the taxpayer)
NELC Bailiff contractor Fraud
NELC Bailiff contractor Fraud 2
Grimsby Magistrates Abetting Fraud
NELC Business Rates Fraud
I am LOVING your work!
DeleteMr. Bola
ReplyDeletecut to the chase :-)
Private Criminal Prosecution
You could do worse that start here
fwiw - if the tariff on charges laid is over six months - it goes straight to Crown Court - and if the case is accepted - legal costs are disbursed from central funds. What's not to like?
It has nothing to do with the Home Office, so it says, which I believe as it is confirmed by Humberside police.
ReplyDeletejust off your patch in Wiltshire work is underway to meld the council and plod together ... really
ReplyDeleteSee here talk of "synergies" etc so we'll end up with council = plod?
Here's an up-date regarding similar issues with Humberside polices fraud department.
ReplyDeleteThe police strung its response out and eventually concluded after several months (as anticipated) that it would not investigate the allegations. The Detective dealing with the matter, after it was requested that he escalate a complaint to the Chief Constable, forwarded all the correspondence to the Force's Professional Standards Branch.
Also as expected, the Detective Inspector in charge of the Economic Crime Unit, tasked with investigating itself, concluded that the decision still stands.
It might be entertaining to see the response and be made aware of the standard to which Humberside police's fraud unit works, which entails asking the council (the authority against who allegations were made) if it was guilty and taking it at its word when it said no.
What would really be interesting to know is who the person was that Detective Inspector Welton visited in 2009 at their home to explain the reasons why the allegations were not of a criminal nature.
Complaint outcome....
Carrying on the theme of police corruption, there are some interesting discoveries regarding Humberside Police's Professional Standards investigation into why the force is turning a blind eye to bailiff fraud.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Humberside Police is wrongly classifying complaints as organisational decisions (direction and control) when clearly they are conduct matters. If the complaint was correctly classified, i.e., a conduct matter, then a right would exist of appealing to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
The Police Reform Act 2002 was amended by Paragraph 5(2) Schedule 14 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 so that where a complaint relates to a direction and control matter, there is no obligation for the police to refer the complaint to the IPCC.
Note: Humberside Police's ending statement:
"Please be aware that as your complaint refers to an organisational issue there is no right of appeal against the outcome of this process. This is in accordance with Paragraph 8A Schedule 3 [Paragraph 4(8)(a)] of the Police Reform Act 2002."
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 IPCC explains more.
The fact that the professional standards branch wrongly categorised the complaint such that there would be no right of appeal against the outcome is further evidence of corruption within Humberside police. I am still not convinced however, that their tactics are going to prevent this getting the attention of the Chief Constable, Police and Crime Commissioner & IPCC.
The force has sent a revised account of its outcome to the complaint (first sent 4 February this year) because initially it wrongly recorded the complaint as Direction and Control rather than a Conduct matter which may be appealed.
ReplyDeletePolice Complaint Reply 01 May 2014
The response should have been the appeal outcome but the force has evidently taken advantage of drawing the process out by copying almost word for word its decision (4 Feb) and providing details of how the decision may be appealed.
There would be no surprise if it was discovered that the force outsourced the job of dealing with these issues to primary school students, but to challenge them, gave no specific details about the issues.
One example:
"....Whilst there are some differences between the officer’s explanation and your account, I do not question your genuine belief and perception of the incident. However, I hope the explanation provided by the officer and myself goes some way towards allaying your sense of grievance.... "
They think the allegations are about a specific incident affecting myself, not one about hundreds of thousands that adds up to £millions.