RESTRICTED - POLICY

APPEALS AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF LOCAL RESOLUTION

For Internal Use Only

We must receive your complaint within 29 days of the date of the letter telling you about the
outcome of the complaint. This includes the time your appeal spends in the post.
Please tick the appropriate box: Mr

Mrs

Miss

Ms

Other (please specify)

First name: (Please write clearly)

Surname: (Please write clearly)

Santa.......................................

Claus

Your address:
..................... 273 C St. Nicholas Drive
...................90 degrees North latitude
...................North Pole
Postcode AK 99705..
Daytime telephone number

Evening telephone number

None..

None

Email address: electaddofsantac@aol.com...

_______________________________________________
Date you made on your complaint

Reference number (if known)

12/11/15..

CO 461/15 ...

If you have received a letter about the outcome of the local resolution of your complaint,
please give the date of that letter: 13/01/16.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
Section 2: Would you like someone to act on your behalf?
Please tick as appropriate:
Yes I would like someone to act on my
behalf:

No, I dont want someone to act on my

behalf:

If you selected yes, please provide the contact details of the person acting on your behalf
:
Personal details:
Title:
First name:
Surname:
Date of birth
Address details:
House/flat number:
House/building name:
Street:
Town:

County:
Postcode
Contact details:
Email address:
Main contact number:
Alternative contact number:

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
Do you agree with the outcome of the local resolution? Tick one box only.
Yes

No

If your answer is no, please provide further information, continuing on a separate sheet if
necessary.
I dont consider that the complaint was suitable for Local Resolution. This was made
clear in a number of emails which were never addressed as I have set out below.
Request that complaint escalated to the Chief Constable ignored
After being advised on 11.12.15 that the crime I had reported was not a Police matter but
civil, I made it categorically clear 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 (see the following):
From: Xxxx
To: Morley, Gillian 9614
Sent: November 12, 2015
Subject: Re: Crime Reporting Submission
Dear Ms Morley
I am in disbelief that Humberside police have arrived at the conclusion that fraud is not a police
matter. I have not heard such an absurd statement since the force said the same with regards
bailiff firms defrauding council taxpayers.
Your suggestion that I am put to the expense of enriching the legal profession when I am in any
event contributing to fund the police out of the very tax which the council wishes to defraud from
me has some irony to it.
I am left obviously with no option than to submit a complaint about whoever within the force made
this decision. However, I would much prefer the person against whom I make the complaint to be
the Chief Constable so that any investigation will not be conducted by the force itself in the hope of
removing the 'sham' element which is associated with these matters. Therefore, please escalate
this matter for the attention of the Chief Constable.

Statement produced and request that complaint be investigated by another force

On being advised to collate all evidence to support the allegations by Police Sergeant
Graeme Smithey (email 13.11.15), a significant amount of work was undertaken to
produce a statement. The document, which referred to and listed around 30 other files,
was sent under cover of an email dated 2.12.15 but the supporting documents withheld
3

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
awaiting further notification. Presumably the police did not intend seriously considering
the evidence as the other files were never asked for and consequently never sent. The
email (see below) suggested that another police force dealt with the matter for the
reasons highlighted in paragraph 68 of the statement I had attached:
From: Xxxx
To: Smithey, Graeme 1226
Sent: December 02, 2015
Subject: Re: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE
Dear Mr Smithey
I have a letter dated 23 November 2015 from DCI Andy Oliver explaining that the Professional
Standards Branch is in receipt of my complaint.
It strikes my that this matter is now consigned to the complaints process which from my experience
will entail a number of years being fobbed off until it can go no further and will be told to F. off
unless I want to try my luck in the casino justice system and challenge the decision in the High
Court.
I have acted on your suggestion by collecting all the evidence etc. and produced a statement. I
have explained in the document (attached) that because of a conflict of interest which exists if
Humberside police were to deal with this matter, it is suggested that another police force does so
(see para 68 for details).
There are a significant number of documents accompanying the statement and will withhold those
until I'm informed further about the matter.

Key facts: local resolution

The information sheet, Key facts: local resolution stated that the person dealing with the
complaint would consider my representations if it was strongly believed that the
complaint should not be dealt with by local resolution. In an email (see below) sent to the
officer allocated the complaint, I expressed my believe that the matter was not suitable to
be dealt with by this process as, among other reasons, perjury was punishable as an
offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings. The consequences were that I
was a victim of Fraud committed by North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) in
presenting a false witness statement to the court. Again the statement (minus the
supporting files) was attached.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
From: Xxxx
To: Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Sent: December 20, 2015
Subject: Perjury to commit fraud - CO 461/15
Dear Mr Harvey
I have a letter dated 17 December 2015 regarding case reference CO 461/15 which was recorded
8 December 2015. I'm aware that the issue has been considered suitable for Local Resolution and
the file forwarded to yourself to deal with. The matter concerns a complaint about an officer
wrongly informing me that a crime I have reported is a civil matter.
I have read through the information document "Key facts: local resolution" and strongly believe that
this matter is not suitable to be dealt with by this process.
In the period between making my complaint and it being recorded I have done a significant amount
of work putting together a statement after being advised by Police Sergeant Graeme Smithey in an
email 13 November 2015 which contained the following:
"I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims
you are making against the court."
For the avoidance of doubt, it might be helpful if I stressed that allegations of perjury were levelled
against North East Lincolnshire Council for presenting a false witness statement, this is additional
to the allegations made about Grimsby Magistrates' Court for perverting the course of justice. As
set out in the introduction of the attached statement, the association with the Civil Jurisdiction.. of
the Magistrates Courts Act, does not make the matter civil. Perjury is punishable as an offence
whether it occurs in criminal or civil proceedings and the consequences are in this case that a false
statement was made in order to commit an act of fraud.
The process described in the 'Key facts' document will not get the result I intend to achieve.
However, the attached statement (and supporting documents) provide the evidence required to
justify that a full investigation is carried out in order to satisfy the Crown Prosecution Service that a
successful conviction could be secured.
Further discussion to draw up an action plan is unnecessary and a waste of recourses in the light
of the evidence already produced. The process in any event will be a back covering exercise which
would continue, for example, if the right exercised to appeal a negative outcome.
Even in the unlikely event that the complaint is upheld, none of the consequences set out in the
key facts document appear to hold the force accountable in the way I require, which is to consider
the allegations a police matter for which a proper investigate is undertaken.

The Inspectors subsequent correspondence (below) suggested that my representations

where not considered and the process as originally proposed would be carried out
regardless. The documents referred to in the statement were not asked for.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
From: "Harvey, Allan 5521"
To: xxxx
Sent: December 30, 2015
Subject: FW: Complaint CO/461/15
Mr Xxxxxxx,
I have received the above from Humberside Police Professional Standards branch to respond to
you as the resolving officer. The matter has been determined to be one concerning neglect of duty,
but suitable for the local resolution process.
I am unable to speak to you regarding your complaint as your phone line is unobtainable.
In an effort to progress this matter the investigation plan I propose is:
Deal with the matter as a Local Resolution
Review contents of complaint file
Discuss the matter with Humberside Police Force Solicitors
Seek any relevant response from staff concerned
Instigate any service recovery identified
Write to the complainant with the outcome of the enquiry.
If this is agreeable to you, then can you e-mail me to advise that this is acceptable. As part of the
Local Resolution Process, you have right of appeal of the outcome to the Humberside Police
Appeal Body.

It was assumed that the Inspector had not received my representations and so the
following email sent to express this. The seriousness of the matter was conveyed as well
as the consequences of the police failing to investigate.
From: Xxxx
To: Harvey, Allan 5521
Sent: December 30, 2015
Subject: Re: Complaint CO/461/15
Mr Harvey
It is my understanding from your correspondence today that the email (and attachment) which I
have confirmation was forwarded to you on 21 December 2015 was not received.
In that correspondence I set out my concerns about the complaint not being considered suitable for
Local Resolution. A statement was attached which provides evidence to support my allegations. A
table itemising around 30 supporting documents is contained in that statement which need to be
considered by the person undertaking any review/investigation. Neither the statement nor the
supporting documents have been referred to which concerns me.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
The seriousness of these allegations cannot be over stated nor the consequences if the
Council/Court are allowed to resort to such criminal actions without being challenged.
Action needs taking sooner rather than later to ensure that the immediate consequences of the
fraud is remedied. This will not be achieved by having to complete complaint and subsequent
appeal procedures which guarantee nothing at the end. The appropriate level of investigation can
be evaluated after the immediate risk of the consequences of the crimes have been removed.
The consequences do not stop at the fraudulently obtained court cost. Unnecessary enforcement
measures will follow, incurring additional costs which will accumulate over time to be sufficient in
amount that the council will achieve its vindictive aim and be able to take insolvency, bankruptcy or
custodial action.
Will you let me know if you require the correspondence re-sending (with attached statement) which
was originally dated 20 December 2015.

The email elicited no response but another sent on 12.1.16 did (the next day) to inform
me that I should be receiving his response from the Professional Standards Department
imminently. That response was sent on 13.1.16 and was the final outcome of the local
resolution process, not a reply to any of my representations. Clearly all my
correspondence had been ignored and the local resolution process completed with the
decision indicating that the force was ignorant or did not have any regard for the Criminal
Justice and Courts Act 2015 (the 2015 Act).

Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

An officer commits an offence under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the 2015
Act by failing to exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the detriment of another
person. There has clearly been a failure in exercising police powers by wrongly advising
that the matter does not concern the Police as it is civil. Had the force exercised its
powers and investigated the crime (an open and shut case) NELC would not be entitled
to the fraudulent proceeds, which may potentially be added to with further fraudulent
sums. The failure to exercise its power to investigate has therefore caused me a financial
loss which is likely to continue to my detriment and intensify in the passing of time.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
The suitability test for local resolution
Independent Police Complaints Commissions (IPCC) published practical guidance on
handling complaints etc., includes a test for establishing whether a complaint is suitable
for local resolution or investigation. The relevant part of the test for assessing suitability
for local resolution, as quoted from the August 2014 issue (Focus), is as follows:
The suitability test
A complaint is suitable for local resolution if the appropriate authority is satisfied:
a. the conduct being complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or disciplinary
proceedings against the person being complained about...

Applying the IPCC test correctly should have determined the local resolution process
unsuitable and a full investigation carried out instead, because failure to exercise a police
power, combined with that failure causing a financial loss, would justify criminal
proceedings under Section 26 of the 2015 Act. The guidance also states. if there is
doubt about a complaint being suitable for local resolution, err on the side of caution and
conduct an investigation. The following provides clarification:
The test is whether the conduct complained about, even if proven, would not justify criminal or
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, when considering if the conduct would justify the bringing of
proceedings, there should be no consideration of the strength of the evidence, whether the
complaint is likely to be upheld, or the likeliness of prosecution.
When assessing a complaint using the suitability test, the complaint should be taken at face value,
focusing on the substance of the conduct being complained about. The decision should not be
based on the wording of the complaint alone (the relevant appeal body test is applied in this way).
It also should not be based on reviewing the evidence available and exploring the likely outcome
(the special requirements test on investigations is applied in this way).
The person assessing the complaints seriousness should consider contacting the complainant to
better understand their complaint and to get further information. A mini-investigation to assess the
strength of evidence for the complaint (such as getting custody records, incident logs, speaking to
the officers concerned, etc) should not be conducted. If the evidence does not support the
complaint then the complaint is not upheld following an investigation, it does not make it any more
suitable for local resolution.
It is possible for a complaint that uses exaggerated language to be locally resolved, but the right of
appeal is to the IPCC. It is also possible for a complaint to be deemed unsuitable for local
resolution, but then the appointed investigating officer, upon reviewing the evidence, does not
apply special requirements to the subsequent investigation.

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
Do you feel the outcome was a proper outcome?
This means that, for example, you believe the outcome was not appropriate to the
complaint, or the outcome did not reflect the evidence available. Tick one box only.
Yes

No

If your answer is no, please provide further information, continuing on a separate sheet if
necessary.

The outcome was wholly inappropriate as the investigating officer based his response
solely with regard to the court case being that the judges determination was to grant a
liability order. In doing so, the fraudulent application for the liability order made by NELC
which is a criminal allegation in isolation from the judges conduct has been allowed
to avoid scrutiny. The evidence provided is conclusive and to be overlooked strongly
suggests that Humberside police engages in a practice which overlooks its duty to the
taxpayer in favour of shielding the local authority from justice.
The outcome has also wrongly been determined on advice obtained from the Force
Solicitors. That advice was based on the assumption that the issues may be appeal
points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings. The proceedings
involved defending NELCs application for a liability order for non-payment of Council
Tax. In that regard the opportunity exists for the defendant to appeal a decision to the
High Court either by way of a case stated or judicial review. Both are in any event
unreasonable procedures for an ordinary taxpayer to have to embark upon with it likely
taking years (if ever) to succeed in having the case brought before the Queens bench.
Moreover 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 those proceedings.

.
If you have any documents that support your appeal please list below or attach to them
to this form when submitting your appeal
.
Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
............................................................................................................................

_______________________________________________

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY
Signature of the person making this appeal:

Date:

................................... .

25 /01 / 2016

All public bodies are obliged to record the ethnicity of people using its service. Being able
to identify the ethnicity of complainants helps us to check it is reaching all sections of
society. Please describe your ethnicity using the boxes below:
WHITE
White British
White Irish
Any other White background

MIXED
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other mixed background

ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH

Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Any other Asian background

BLACK OR BLACK BRITISH

Caribbean
African
Any other Black background

CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC GROUP

Chinese
Any other ethnic group

NOT STATED

Where to send this form

Please print this form and post to:
Humberside Police Appeals Body
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF
Or Email to: PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Or complete and send via: www.humberside.police.uk

10

RESTRICTED - POLICY

RESTRICTED - POLICY

Guidance
If you made a complaint about the police that was dealt with using local resolution and
you are not happy with the outcome you may be able to appeal.
The exception to this is when the complaint was about a direction and control issue.
Direction and control means the overall policies of a police force, for example police
resources and policing standards.
You can appeal if:

you do not agree with the outcome of the local resolution

you think that the outcome of the local resolution of your complaint was not a
proper one. This means that, for example, you believe the outcome was not
appropriate to the complaint, or the outcome did not reflect the evidence available.

You cannot appeal against the way in which the local resolution was handled. This
means that you cannot appeal because you are unhappy with the process followed to
locally resolve your complaint.

Additional notes:

.................................................................................................

11

RESTRICTED - POLICY