IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/0161

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT A-5
Citing repetition and abuse of process to justify
non-recording of crime
Humberside Police log 207 of 7 January 2017

"I have suspicions that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the
Magistrate's court, operations are being run criminally. This is after recently
becoming aware of a total eleven items of correspondence stated to have been sent to
me by post from the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire. I can
categorically confirm that not one of these have been delivered to me.

Copies of the letters in question which go back to December 2013 have only been
seen by me as a result of preliminary investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman (last
year) and a HMCTS complaint (this year).

The first time I have seen copies of the correspondence relate to two separate dates.
Three items in respect of the Judicial Ombudsman 23 February 2016 and eight in
respect of 3 January 2017.

If in fact the letters have not been sent I wish to know (if proven) what criminal
offence has been committed and how to report the matter. I know that the various
organisations and complaints procedure within HMCTS are not appropriate as they do
not investigate criminal allegations.

The matter can not simply be dismissed as one's word against another's as a question
arises as to whether some of the letters should have been recorded or signed for. I
have spotted anomalies that would support my suspicions, for example the local
authority to whom copies of a number of items should have also been served has
confirmed that it holds no record of them either..."
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Making a complaint against the

police, a Police and Crime
Commissioner or the Mayors
Office for Policing and Crime
IPCC Office Use Only

Completing the form

Please use BLOCK CAPITALS when completing this form. If you have any difficulties in filling
out this form, and would like to discuss it please call 101. If you would like someone to act on
your behalf (perhaps a friend or relative) please provide their details and your written
permission for them to act on your behalf and submit this with your form.

Your details (complainant)

Title: e.g. Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms (Mr) First name:

Surname: Date of birth: / /

Address:

Grimsby

North East Lincolnshire Postcode: DN32

Work telephone N/A Home telephone number N/A

Mobile telephone number: N/A Email: @gmail.com

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Who are you complaining about?

Please give the details of who you are complaining about for example the police force /
Police and Crime Commissioner or the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime.

Police force

For complaints against the police please give us any details you might have about the
officer(s) you would like to make a complaint against:

Name, rank, ID and any other identifier: Suspected WPC Mellows

Name, rank, ID and any other identifier:

If you know the police station that the officer/s work from, please give details:

Grimsby police station (Assume)

What is your complaint about?

Please describe the circumstances that have led to your complaint? Include details of:

Who was involved?

What was said and done
Where the incident took place
When the incident took place
If there was any damage or injury
Any other people who witnessed the incident
Details of any witness

At this stage we only require a summary of your complaint, but you may attach additional
information if necessary. Please use the space provided on the last page of this form.

A crime was submitted on Humberside polices website, as follows:

"I have suspicions that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the
Magistrate's court, operations are being run criminally. This is after recently becoming
aware of a total eleven items of correspondence stated to have been sent to me by
post from the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire. I can categorically
confirm that not one of these have been delivered to me.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Copies of the letters in question which go back to December 2013 have only been
seen by me as a result of preliminary investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman (last
year) and a HMCTS complaint (this year).

The first time I have seen copies of the correspondence relate to two separate dates.
Three items in respect of the Judicial Ombudsman 23 February 2016 and eight in
respect of 3 January 2017.

If in fact the letters have not been sent I wish to know (if proven) what criminal offence
has been committed and how to report the matter. I know that the various
organisations and complaints procedure within HMCTS are not appropriate as they do
not investigate criminal allegations.

The matter can not simply be dismissed as one's word against another's as a question
arises as to whether some of the letters should have been recorded or signed for. I
have spotted anomalies that would support my suspicions, for example the local
authority to whom copies of a number of items should have also been served has
confirmed that it holds no record of them either..."

A woman police officer contacted me by telephone on 10 January 2017 who stated that the
matter was not for the police and the court should be contacted.

A reference number was stated to be log 207 of 7 January 2017. I disagreed with the decision
and I asked for the reasons for the decision to be put in writing so I could formally appeal it.

The officer agreed to do this but I have not received any correspondence.

Signature and date

The details of this complaint will be sent to the appropriate authority responsible for
considering your complaint. Please sign and date to confirm the information you have
provided is correct:

Signature Date 25 February 2017

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

Tel 101
Fax 01482 305004

12 April 2017

Mr

Grimsby
DN

Dear Mr ,

I am writing with reference to your complaint reference CO/00127/2017 recorded by

Humberside Police on the 10th March 2017, Incident log 207 07/01/17 refers. I am
the supervising officer of the officer associated with your complaint.

Your complaint has been dealt with by way of the Local Resolution Procedure and I
agree that this is a suitable course of action in the circumstances.

Humberside Police is committed to providing a quality of service to all members of

the public and I am grateful, therefore, that you have taken the trouble to bring this
matter to Force's attention. Accordingly, the matter causing you concern was
recorded and I was appointed to enquire into it.

You have alleged that PS 2403 Mellors has advised that she had agreed to send you
a letter confirming that an issue you had reported was not a police matter, and that
the letter had never been received by you.

PS Mellors has now been spoken to and details of your complaint have been brought
to her attention.

I have checked the relevant log and confirm that PS Mellors did agree that the letter
would be sent, and delayed the log to do so.

Another officer believing that there was no reason to keep the log open has closed it,
and this has led to an oversight by PS Mellors in not writing that letter to you.

PS Mellors has offered her sincere apologies for this oversight and has now
completed that correspondence which I attach.

I have given PS Mellors management advice about ensuring that commitments, once
made are adhered to which are accepted by her, and I am confident that this matter

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

is an isolated incident in relation to this officer.

I am sorry you felt cause to complain on this occasion and hope that this experience
will not adversely affect any future contact you may have with members of the
Humberside Police.

The appropriate appeal body is the Humberside Police Appeal Body as your
complaint does not relate to the conduct of a senior officer, has not been referred to
the IPCC, does not justify criminal or misconduct proceedings and does not arise
from the same incident as a complaint where the IPec would have to deal with any
appeal.

You have 29 days from the date of this letter, within which to make your appeal. You
are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the
IPCC/Humberside Police Appeal Body before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day
is 11th May, 2017. Appeals received after 29 days may not be allowed unless
there are exceptional circumstances.

You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to
ensure that your appeal is received within time.

Yours Sincerely

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

Tel 101
Fax 01482 305004

5 April 2017

Mr

Grimsby
DN

Dear Mr ,

I am writing with reference to your complaint you made on the 7th January 2017,
Incident log 207 07/01/17 refers, regarding the suspicions that within the Humber
and South division of the Magistrate's court, operations had been run criminally after
items of correspondence had not been delivered to you.

Professional Standards Branch within Humberside Police have reviewed this and
confirmed that this is not a complaint against police or an allegation of misconduct
against any police officer or support member of staff.

This information was relayed to you during a telephone conversation on the 10/01/17
by myself and I am confirming this in writing as requested.

Yours Sincerely

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 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)

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

Your address:
...................

...................Grimsby

...................North East Lincolnshire

PostcodeDN ..

Daytime telephone number Evening telephone number

None.. None

Email address: @googlemail.com .

_______________________________________________

Date you made on your complaint Reference number (if known)

25/02/17.. CO 127/17

If you have received a letter about the outcome of the local resolution of your complaint,
please give the date of that letter: 12/04/17.

1 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.
.

My complaint was that Sergeant Mellors contacted me by telephone on 10 January 2017

and stated that the matter I had reported 7 January 2017 online was not for the police
and the court should be contacted.

I disagreed with the decision and I asked for the reasons for the decision to be put in
writing so I could formally appeal it. I have now received a letter dated 5 April 2017 from
Sergeant Mellors as a result of my complaint but the contents are irrelevant.

As stated I was informed by Sergeant Mellors on 10 January that the concerns were not
a matter for the police and the court should be contacted, however, the 5 April letter
states that the criminal matter I had alleged was not a complaint against police or an
allegation of misconduct against any police officer or support member of staff.

This oddly implies that Humberside police do not investigate criminal activity unless it has
been committed by officers serving with Humberside police.

I outlined why I believed that that within the Humber and South Yorkshire division of the
Magistrate's court, operations were being run criminally. Clearly I was not complaining
about the conduct of a police officer and I am therefore confused about why my letter
dated 5 April deals with the matter as if it was.
.

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.

..............................
As above
..................................................................

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

3 RESTRICTED - POLICY
 RESTRICTED - POLICY
If you have any documents that support your appeal please list below or attach to them
to this form when submitting your appeal
.
An email of 19 March 2017 in which Christine Wilson (head of specialist crime) was
copied has a number of documents attached relevant to this matter, i.e., supporting my
allegation of dishonesty within Grimsby Magistrates court. Evidence is contained in
those papers that support my allegations that the court had dishonestly produced a
substantial number of documents claiming them to have been sent going as far back as
2013 that had in fact never been sent.

The final outcome dealt with by HMCTS complaints handling team regarding the
documents (19 March email) is appended to this complaint. The court has obviously not
gone so far as admitting the alleged crime, but it supports that my concerns are valid and
is now a matter for the police to investigate.
............................................................................................................................
_______________________________________________
Signature of the person making this appeal: Date:

................................... . 22 /04 / 2017

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:

4 RESTRICTED - POLICY
 HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Customer Investigations Team
Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
HM Courts & SW1H 9AJ

Tribunals Service Email:

ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32

6 April 2017 Our ref: 00042/165/1617

Without Prejudice

Dear Mr

Grimsby Magistrates Court

Thank you for your letter of 19 March about the way your application for a case stated
was handled by the Grimsby Magistrates Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied
with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final stage of the
complaints process.

I have reviewed the previous responses from Mrs Watts and Mr Hopgood and having
done so I believe your complaint needs further investigation. After careful consideration
I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer you compensation for the poor level
of service that you have received. My reasons for this are as follows.

I understand that the North East Lincolnshire Council issued a summons against you
for unpaid council tax and the court hearing was set for 2 November 2012. Before the
hearing took place you paid the outstanding sum of 437.52 and also 10 towards the
costs. The court decided that you should pay the councils remaining costs of 60. On
the 21 November 2012 you applied to the court to state a case so you could appeal the
decision. An acknowledgment was sent to you on 22 November 2012 by the Deputy
Justices Clerk, Mr Draper.

You chased for a response on 28 December 2012 but your email to Mr Draper was not
delivered. You then emailed the Justices Clerk, Mrs Alison Watts, also on 28
December 2012. You received a response to your emails on 14 January 2013 from Mr
Townell confirming that he would find out what was happening with your application.
On the 24 January 2013 Mrs Watts wrote to you to confirm that the justices required
you to enter into a recognizance of 500 before they stated the case for consideration
of the High Court.

On the 5 February 2013 you wrote to the court to find out why you had been asked to
pay 500. You felt that you were being prevented access to the courts because you
could not afford this sum. The court acknowledged your letter on 6 February and
dfgdda
confirmed the matter would be brought to the attention of Mrs Watts. You chased for a
reply on 26 February and were informed on 27 February that Mrs Watts was looking
into the matter.

I note that on the 23 March 2013 you wrote to the Administrative Court Office (ACO)
telling them that you would like to apply to the High Court for an order that the justices
state the case. You were told by the ACO that you would need to apply for Judicial
Review (JR).

On the 27 March you asked the court for an update and you were informed on the
same day that the matter was receiving attention. In the absence of a response you
wrote a further letter on 29 April asking for a certificate under section 111(5) of the
MCA1980 to confirm the reasons why the justices have refused to state a case. You
explained that if you did not receive a response within 14 days you would be apply for a
JR. In the absence of a response you began the JR procedure and your application
was issued on 13 June 2013.

The courts response to your JR application was that you had not been asked to pay
the 500 upfront and that the letter dated 23 January 2013 explained that position.
However, the court agreed, in order to save public money, to prepare a draft case and
serve on the parties within 14 days. On the 24 July 2013 a draft case was dispatched
for the parties comments. You replied on 19 August 2013. I note that the council
responded on 9 September 2013.

On the 10 January 2014, and also on 13 February, you wrote to the court to ask why
the final case stated had not been sent out. On the 6 March Mrs Watts said she would
look into the matter and get back to you by the following morning. You then wrote again
on 22 April 2014 asking why you have not had a response. In the absence of a
response you raised a complaint with the Advisory Committee. I do not propose to
repeat the history of this specific complaint, but I have noted that you experienced
difficulties with the process. You escalated the matter to the Judicial Appointments &
Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) and received a final report on 23 May 2016.

On the 25 June 2016 you wrote to my team out of frustration because you were yet to
receive the case stated and this was preventing you to go to the High Court. At this
point you had waited three and half years for the case to be stated. In line with the HM
Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) complaints process my team asked the court to
investigate what had happened.

Mrs Watts wrote to you on the 22 July 2016 and acknowledge that the level of service
provided to you on occasions could have been better. She explained that the case
stated was posted to you on 19 December 2013 and that further copies were sent to
you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014.

On the 26 January 2017 you emailed Ms Collins asking for a review of the complaint. I
believe that you had recently received copies of correspondence from the court file
following a Subject Access Request and had found that a number of letters had not
reached you through the post. Mr Hopgood responded to you on 22 February 2017 at
the review stage of the complaints process.

Page 2
My findings.

It is clear that you had a strong view about the costs that were awarded to the local
council on 2 November 2012. While the amount in contention was 60, it was your right
to apply to the court to state a case. The initial handling of your application was poor
because insufficient arrangements had been made to cover Mr Drapers work after he
had left the court. I am sorry that you had to wait two months before you received the
courts letter of 24 January 2013. You had a number of issues with the decision to
impose a recognizance to pay 500 and wrote to the court about this. I understand the
consequence of entering into a recognizance was that if you did not pursue your
appeal in the High Court you would have had to pay 500. If you did pursue your
appeal the 500 would not have to be paid. I cannot comment on a judicial decision but
I do consider the handling of your correspondence on the matter was very poor.

I could not find any substantial response to your letter of 5 February 2013 and I believe
this was the courts opportunity to clarify and explain the position to you. It must have
been very frustrating for you that you were not given a full reply. I am sorry that the only
way you were able to prompt a response from the court was by issuing a judicial review
application. It was at that stage that the court decided to prepare the draft case without
the need for a recognizance. It is my view that the final case stated document could
have been prepared in a timelier manner and served on the parties before the 19
December 2013.

You have said that you did not receive the courts letter of 19 December 2013 or the
additional letters sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. I am not doubting
you did not receive the letters through the post. I am sorry that is the case but I have
not seen any reason to believe they were not posted to you. I have noted the courts
admission that the final case should have been sent by recorded delivery. The court is
unable to provide any evidence that this method of postage was used. Therefore I hold
the view the letter of 19 December 2013 was not sent by recorded delivery.

It is regrettable that you did not receive 10 documents through the post but, in the
absence of receiving the letters, I do appreciate why you felt you were being ignored. I
therefore understand why you made a complaint about the judiciary. After you received
the final JACO report in 2016 you reverted to the HMCTS complaints process. Again, it
is regrettable that you did not received the courts response dated 22 July 2016 but I
have not seen any reason to suggest that it was not posted to you in the normal way.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that you have experienced a very poor level of service due to the way
your correspondence had been handled. The court had a number of opportunities to
clarify the position for you and, in the absence of doing so, it caused you a lot of
frustration and inconvenience. While I am satisfied that the letters on file would have
been posted to you, it is my view that an alternative service method of the final case
stated should have been considered after your third request for a copy had been
received.

While I appreciate you were pursuing a complaint about the judiciary between 2014
and 2016, I do have to take into account the fact that you did not pursue the court for a
copy of the final case for over two years. I also appreciate the fact that you could not
pursue an appeal until the case had been stated by the magistrates court. However, I

Page 3
believe you could have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties you were
having. In addition, I have not seen any reason why you could not have telephoned the
court to chase the final case stated document.

Overall, I believe an apology alone will not be sufficient in recognition of the poor level
of service that you received. I would therefore like to offer you the sum of 375 in
recognition of the poor handling of your application and subsequent correspondence. I
would also like to offer you a further sum of 375 to apologise for the frustration and
inconvenience that you experienced.

If you would like to accept the total sum of 750 please let me know in writing (by email
is fine) and I will arrange payment to you. If you would prefer a bank transfer please
provide me with your bank details. Please allow 20 working days for the money to
reach you after I have received your acceptance.

If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can
ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). By law the Ombudsman can only look at complaints
about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP.
Please fill out the form on the Ombudsmans website www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-
complaint first and then pass it to an MP. Please be aware that there are time limits for
the Ombudsman to look into complaints and they are investigated at the PHSOs
discretion. You can find your local MP at findyourmp.parliament.uk.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

Page 4
 RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters,
Priory Road,
Hull, HU5 5SF.
Switchboard: 101
Tel: 01482 578335
Fax: 01482 305004

This matter is being dealt with by:

Professional Standards

psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

IX/ 782/17/SAS 5 July 2017

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN

Dear Mr

This letter is about your appeal against Humberside Police which was received on
22nd April 2017 and the decision by The Humberside Police Complaints Board
(Sally Laycock) that part of your complaint in respect of Humber and South Yorkshire
Division of Magistrates Court should be considered separately.

You would have received a letter dated 27th June 2017 from Sally Laycock advising
that your appeal had not been upheld and a report was attached explaining that
decision. You were also advised she was passing the file back to Professional
Standards Branch to consider a recording decision about the actual criminal
allegations you were making and the reasons why the police were not investigating
them. This letter is intended to explain that issue.

The previous complaints have been reviewed, they have a historical connection with
the matters you are currently complaining about. You have made references to
investigations being carried out by the Judicial Ombudsman and Her Majesty's
Courts and Tribunal Services. You refer to correspondence between the courts and
yourself which you assert you did not receive pointing to criminal offences of fraud
or conspiracy to defraud.
 RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS

These matters arise from a longstanding dispute with North East Lincolnshire
Council over alleged unpaid council tax and their attempt to recover the same
through the Magistrates Court and debt recovery agents. Debts were paid by
instalments and the Council, Court and their agents did not acknowledge this but
continued legal process. This was considered both by the Humberside Police
Economic Crime Unit and by the Professional Standards Branch and evidential
documents submitted by yourself supportive of your allegations were included.
(Files CO/567/11 and CO/19/14 refer).

Two different Inspectors considered these matters of alleged criminal extortion or

fraud both arriving at the conclusion they were not satisfied there were good
grounds to support that criminal offences had been committed. This was after fact
finding enquiries were conducted with both NELC and the courts. An Inspector
visited your home and explained to you your allegations were not of a criminal
nature but related to mal-administration. Your suggestion there was some kind of
collective conspiracy is not of sustainable proportion.

The complaint you have raised is fundamentally the same as those alleged
previously, and missing letters or letters not sent are part of that process and
subject. Your complaint in this respect is therefore repetitious.

'Complaints against Police' are strictly governed by legislation, namely the Police
Reform Act 2002 (as amended by the Police & Social Responsibility Act 2011) and
the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012. These specify that there
are certain criteria under which a complaint does not have to be recorded. These
include if the complaint is repetitious.

You have submitted complaints and appeals through the Ombudsman and HMCTS
which is the correct forum for this matter and the Police Complaints process is not
designed or intended to cater for this. This compliant is therefore in my view an
Abuse of Process.

This matter will not be recorded on the grounds of Repetition and Abuse of process.

This decision will be disappointing for you and recognise you have committed a
great deal of time and research into these matters over which you feel a keen sense
of grievance.

If you are not happy with the decision you can appeal to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission. Enclosed is a document advising you of this process. You
have 29 days from the day after the date of this letter, within which to make your
appeal to the IPCC. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it
reaches the IPCC before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day is 03rd April, 2017.
Appeals received after 29 days may not be allowed unless there are
exceptional circumstances.
 RESTRICTED - INVESTIGATIONS

You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to
ensure that your appeal is received within time.

Yours sincerely
Appealing against a complaint not being recorded
The IPCC must receive your appeal within 28 days commencing on the day after the
date of the letter you have received from the police. This includes the time your appeal
spends in the post. This form is also available online; completing the form online will
speed up this process. Alternatively, please fill in and return this form as instructed at
the bottom of the form.
____________________________________________________
If there is anything which makes it difficult for you to use this service, for example if
English is not your first language or you have a disability; please contact the IPCC using
the contact details at the end of this form. Alternatively, please use the space below to
tell us how we might help to make things easier for you.

..........

Please give the name of the appropriate authority your complaint was about.
Humberside Police
......

If you have received a letter from the appropriate authority telling you that they will not
be recording your complaint, please give the date of that letter.
5 July 2017
......

___________________________________________________
Please tick the appropriate box: Mr Mrs Miss Ms
Other (please specify)

First name: (Please write clearly)

..

Last name: (Please write clearly)

Date of birth: / /
.
Your address:
.

.
Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire
.Postcode: DN32

Daytime telephone number: Evening telephone number:

01234456789. .

Email address: Date you made your complaint:

@gmail.com 25/02/2017

____________________________________________________
Who did you make your complaint to, for example, the police, the IPCC, or another
organisation?
Humberside Police
..
Please provide brief details of the complaint that you made. Please continue on a
separate sheet if necessary.

Humberside police has made a decision not to formally record criminal allegations I
made (Humberside Police log 207 of 7 January 2017) because it considers it to be a
Repetition of the matter I previously complained of and was an Abuse of process.

The force has linked the matter, for the purposes of invalidating the allegations, to
complaints that I had made in 2011 and 2014. Those complaints are referred to by
Humberside Police as having references, CO/567/11 and CO/19/14. The 2014 matter
concerned allegations of fraud by bailiffs contracted to North East Lincolnshire Council,
however, I have not found any correspondence with reference number (CO/567/11)
regarding the earlier matter but presume it concerned the issue of Council Tax
summonses issued en masse without being properly monitored. It is not deemed
necessary to elaborate because the allegations relating to the present matter have no
connection whatsoever with either of the previous issues.

It is considered relevant however to point out that the description in the first paragraph
of the second page of Humberside Polices letter dated 5 July 2017 misrepresents the
allegations made in 2011 and 2014, i.e., debts were paid by instalments and the
Council, Court and their agents did not acknowledge this but continued legal process.
The following paragraph (5 July letter) states completely falsely that an inspector visited
your home and explained to you your allegations were not of a criminal nature but
related to mal-administration. No visit ever took place. This anomaly has been pointed
out to Humberside police numerous times but the force continues to make this claim
without explanation.
My allegations currently concern 10 items of post, claimed to have been sent to me by
the Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire, spanning the period from 19
December 2013 to 22 July 2016 (none of which I had received). The Justices' Clerk
claims that none of the letters were returned by Royal Mail.

I had only learned about these letters after receiving copies of them as a result of
investigations by the Judicial Ombudsman and later a HMCTS complaint. For the
avoidance of doubt, I allege a total of 10 letters were dishonesty claimed to have been
posted to me which had been produced purposely to satisfy the various enquiries.

Humberside police considers that because the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS have
been involved that it is an Abuse of process to subsequently allege a crime has been
committed to the force. The Ombudsman and HMCTS involvement is entirely irrelevant
as the complaints had been submitted with the objective of receiving responses from
the Justices' Clerk to letters which had not been answered over a several year period.
The Ombudsman and HMCTS obtained copies of the letters which I had never received
and which I believed had been produced afterwards. By this time I was satisfied that the
matter had become criminal and would be most appropriately dealt with by the police.

Please tell the IPCC why you would like to appeal about the way your complaint was
handled by ticking the appropriate box.

The appropriate authority did not make a decision about whether to record my
complaint.
The appropriate authority did not record my complaint.
The appropriate authority did not forward my complaint to the appropriate authority
involved (this does not apply if your complaint is about a contractor).

If you have any evidence or information to support your appeal, for example photos or
letters, please list below.

Please note that the information you provide relating to an appeal will be passed to the
appropriate authority involved.
____________________________________________________
Signature of the person making this appeal: Date: 08/07/2017
Our reference number: 2017/088770
I
fit

Force reference number: IX/782/17/SAS independent

nt
annibynnol

PO Box 473
SaleM33 oBW

28 July 2017- BlwchPost473

SaleM33 oBW
Tel/Ff6n:
0300 020 0096
Dear Mr- Fax/Ffacs:
0207166 3306
------------ Textrelay/Cyfnewid
Testun:
18001 0207166 3000

We are independent
complaint of been
should have the police. Our \/Vhen
re~orded. role is to look at
making ~ywh~~f~Q~enquiries@ipc~.gSi.gov.uk
decision f'j{g~~ft~www.IPCc.gov.uk
see:

if the chief officer or appropriate authority failed to make a decision?

if the chief officer or appropriate authority failed to notify the correct
appropriate authority?
if the matter/s you raised should have been recorded as a complaint?

After looking at all the information available I have upheld your appeal.

My letter to you will consider each point.

1. Did the chief officer or appropriate authority fail to make a decision?

No, Humberside Police reviewed your complaint dated 25 February 2017 and
notified you of their decision not to record your complaint on 5 July 2017. The
reason for the delay in providing this decision is set out in their letter of 5 July
2017 and is referenced in full below.

Not upheld.

2. Did the chief officer or appropriate authority fail to notify the

appropriate authority?

No, Humberside Police is the appropriate authority.

Not upheld.

3. Should the matterls you raised have been recorded as a complaint?

When a complaint is made to a chief officer or appropriate authority, they

have a duty to record any complaint about the conduct (behaviour) of a
person serving with the police or a contractor. The law allows the chief officer

Mae'r IPCC yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg

or appropriate authority not to record a complaint where certain statutory
exceptions are met.

It is important to highlight that in reaching my decision I have considered all of

the material and comments provided. Where a document or comment has not
been specifically referred to, it does not mean it has not be considered.

I have reviewed your complaint dated 25 February 2017 and I consider that
the matters you raise are required to be recorded.

In your complaint you note that you submitted an allegation to the force on 7
January 2017 claiming that Humber and South Yorkshire Magistrate's Court
was being run criminally. Specifically, you claim that you had recently become
aware of 11 items of correspondence that the Justice's Clerk claimed to have
sent you however you have stated that none of the correspondence was
delivered to you. You note that the Jetters in question date from December
2013 and you have only seen them as a result of investigations by the Judicial
Ombudsman on 23 February 2016 and HMCTS on 3 January 2017.

In your complaint you state that following the submission of the above
allegation on the force's website on 7 January 2017, a police officer contacted
you by telephone on 10 January 2017. You note that the police officer stated
that the matter was not for the police and the court should be contacted. You
state that you disagreed with the decision and asked for the reasons for the
decision to be put in writing so that you could formally appeal it. You claim
that the officer agreed to do that however you did not receive any such
correspondence.

It appears that the force recorded your complaint under reference number
CO/127/17 and wrote to you with the following summary of your complaint on
10 March 2017:

'The complainant alleged that he was told than an officer would put in writing
why an issue which he reported was not a police matter and he had not
received a response'.

The complaint was then subject to a local resolution; the outcome of which
was sent to you on 12 April 2017. The outcome of the local resolution noted
that the officer, PS Mellors, had mistakenly failed to write to you as agreed.
An apology was provided and PS Mellors received management advice.

You then appealed the outcome of the local resolution on 22 April 2017.
Within your appeal, you claimed that in your complaint of 25 February 2017
you were complaining that the force were not investigating Humber and South
Yorkshire Magistrates Court. You further stated that you were not complaining
about the conduct of the police officer.

The force wrote to you on 27 June 2017 explaining that they did not uphold
your appeal on the basis that a copy of the summary of your complaint was
sent you on 10 March 2017 and you did not contact the force at that point to
advise them that your complaint was not actually about the officer not writing
to you. Despite not upholding your appeal, the force agreed that the matter
should be referred back to the Professional Standards Department for them to
make a recording decision in relation to your complaint of 25 February 2017.

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the above information, I believe that
your complaint dated 25 February 2017 concerns the force's decision not to
investigate your allegation against the Magistrate's Court which you submitted
on 7 January 2017 as a criminal matter.

The force wrote to you on 5 July 2017 to notify you that they would not be
recording your complaint on the basis that they considered it to be both
repetitious and an abuse of the police complaints process. I will now consider
each ground in turn.

With regards to the repetitious ground, the force referred specifically to two
previous complaints which you had submitted under references CO/567/11
and CO/19/14 (the force have since confirmed that the correct reference is in
fact 1X/19/14). They stated that the previous complaints have a historical
connection with the matters you are currently complaining about. They note
that these matters arise from a longstanding dispute with North East
Lincolnshire Council over alleged unpaid council tax and their attempt to
recover the same through the Magistrate's Court and debt recovery agents.
They state that debts were paid by instalments and the Council, Court and
their agents did not acknowledge this but continued the legal process.

The force note that two different Inspectors considered these matters of
alleged criminal extortion and fraud and both concluded that there were no
good grounds to support that criminal offences had been committed. The
force state that your complaint of 25 February 2017 is substantially the same
as those alleged previously and missing letters or letters not sent are part of
that process and subject.

A complaint is considered to be repetitious if it is substantially the same as the

previous complaint, contains no fresh allegations and no fresh evidence is
provided in support.

I have reviewed your previous complaints under reference CO/567/11 and

IX/19/14. Your complaint CO/567/11 was dated 4 December 2011 and
appears to relate to the council and their enforcement practices in relation to
the recovery of council tax, rather than a complaint against the police. It
appears that because the complaint did not specifically relate to the police,
the force did not take any further action.

Your complaint IX/19/14 was dated 24 November 2013. It appears that in your
complaint you claim that the force did not properly investigate fraudulent
activity between Rossendale Bailiffs and the North East Lincolnshire Council. I
understand that the force sent you a proportionate investigation letter in
relation to this complaint which you appealed however the appeal was not
upheld. I note that the matter was finalised in 2015.
I do not agree with the force that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is
repetitious of your previous complaints. Firstly, it appears that your complaint
of 25 February 2017 concerns the force's decision not to criminally investigate
an allegation which you made on 7 January 2017 in relation to letters which
the Justice's Clerk claimed to have sent you in and after December 2013. You
claim that the first time you had sight of the letters in question was on 23
February 2016 and 3 January 2017. Therefore both the letters in question and
the allegation which you submitted to the force postdate your previous
complaints so I do not consider that the complaints are substantially the
same.

Secondly, your complaint of 25 February 2017 appears to relate to the force's

decision not to criminally investigate the Magistrate's Court whereas your
previous complaints appear to relate to the council and bailiffs. Whilst the
complaints may involve historically connected issues, I do not consider them
to be fundamentally the same.

With regards to the abuse of the police complaints process ground, in their
letter dated 5 July 2017 the force note that you have submitted complaints
and appeals through the Judicial Ombudsman and HMCTS which they
consider to be the correct forum for this matter. They state that the police
complaints process is not designed or intended to cater for matters such as
this.

A complaint is considered to be an abuse of the police complaints procedures

where there is or has been manipulation or misuse of the complaints system
to initiate or progress a complaint which, in all the circumstances of the
particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to
continue.

I do not consider that your complaint dated 25 February 2017 is an abuse of

the police complaints procedures. I note the force have referred to the Judicial
Ombudsman and HMCTS being the correct forum for this matter. However, I
believe that the crux of your complaint is that the police have decided not to
criminally investigate the Magistrate's Court for conduct which you consider to
be criminal. I therefore consider that your complaint does specifically relate to
the force and a decision that they have made. I believe the police complaints
system is designed to cater for members of the public to be able to complain
about decisions that the police have made if they are dissatisfied with those
decisions.

I believe that you made it clear to the force from the outset that you wished to
challenge the decision as you stated that you wanted the force to provide you
with the reasons for their decision in writing so that you could appeal it. As
you have stated, despite not receiving those reasons, you submitted your
complaint as you wished to challenge the decision. I believe you have
attempted to utilise the police complaints system in an appropriate manner
and [ therefore do not consider this to be an attempt to misuse or manipulate
the police complaints procedures.
In light of the above, I do not consider that your complaint dated 25 February
2017 is either repetitious or an abuse of the police complaints process and I
will therefore be upholding your appeal.

Upheld.

Humberside Police will be directed to record your complaint dated 25

February 2017. The force will contact you about your complaint in due course.
Please contact the force directly if you do not hear from them within 28 days.

If you have any questions or need any more information about my decision
please contact me using the details at the end of this letter.

Yours sincerely

AlexSimms
Assessment Analyst
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Tel: 0121 6733767

Emaii:
www.ipcc.gov.uk

Find the IPCC's guidance on handling complaints here:

http://www.ipcc.gov.uklpage/statutory-guidance

cc: Humberside Police

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU5 5SF

Tel No: 01482 578133

Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101

This matter is being dealt with by:

Caseworker - Mr T Walmsley

psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

CO/00535/17 09 August 2017

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN

Dear Mr

May I refer to the complaint which you made about the conduCt of an officer from
this Force.

This matter has been formally recorded under the Police Reform Act 2002 as
amended by the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011. I enclose a copy
of the complaint as it has been recorded for your information.

The file has been passed to a caseworker who will do some initial evidence
gathering in relation to your complaint before it is forwarded to an investigating
officer. You will be informed in due course as to who the investigating officer will be.
This process would normally be completed within 28 days however if there is any
further delay you will be updated accordingly.

Should you change your address before the completion of the enquiry, I would ask
you to notify this office at the above address as soon as possible, to enable us to
keep you updated with the progress of the enquiry.

Yours sincerely

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 Professional Standards Branch

Complainant Report

Case Reference CO/00535/17 Case Recorded 09/08/17

COMPLAINANT
Title Mr Address
Surname Grimsby
Forenames North East Lincolnshire
DN

ALLEGATION(S)
No 1
Recorded 09/08/17
Type Operational policing policies
Location Grimsby
Allegation The complainant states the police have failed to investigate criminal allegations of
Allegation Result malfeasance and fraud involving a false claim made by Justices' clerk for Humber
and South Yorkshire that 10 items of post had been sent to him between the
19/12/2013 to 22/07/2016 which the complainant claims never to have received,
and believes they were dishonestly constructed later to satisfy enquiries made by
the judicial ombudsman. The complainant considers these matters should be
investigated by Humberside Police as a Crime

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU5 5SF

Tel No: 01482 578343

Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101

This matter is being dealt with by:

Sally Banks

psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

CO/00535/17 1 September 2017

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN

Dear Mr

You were contacted a short time ago in relation to your complaint that was formally
recorded with Professional Standards.

I am writing to inform you that the matter is still being progressed with the
caseworker.

You will be informed within 28 days as to who the investigating officer will be or if
there is to be a further delay.

Should you change your address before the completion of the enquiry, I would ask
you to notify this office at the above address as soon as possible, to enable us to
keep you updated with the progress of the enquiry.

I apologise for the delay

Yours sincerely

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED