Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 98

Crime reported to Humberside Police on 8 November 2015

North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby committing
perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The
District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the evidence surrounded a false and corrupt
statement, but nevertheless granted the council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum
which presently stands at £120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its
criminal firm of bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed
perjury with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby
Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice by being
complicit to that crime.

From: "Morley, Gillian 9614" <Gillian.Morley@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: " "< @gmail.com>
Sent: 12 November 2015 00:21
Subject: Crime Reporting Submission

Mr

With regards to your report that was submitted to Humberside Police on 08/11/2015 as follows:

North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby committing perjury)
with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel
Curtis) was aware that the evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless
granted the council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at £120.00.
This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of bailiffs, Rossendales. My
allegations are that the council has committed perjury with the intent to fraudulently obtain money
from me by the use of Grimsby Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the
course of justice by being complicit to that crime.

Please be advised that this is not a Police matter and is civil which I suggest you seek further advice
from a solicitor/legal advisor.

Command Hub
Humberside Police
From: " "< @gmail.com>
To: "Morley, Gillian 9614" <Gillian.Morley@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 12 November 2015 10:48
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.

Yours sincerely

From: "Smithey, Graeme 1226" <Graeme.Smithey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 19 November 2015 19:04
Subject: RECENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH HUMBERSIDE POLICE

I write with regard to your recent correspondence with Humberside Police. I have brought the
matter to the attention of our Professional Standards Branch that are based at Priory Road in Hull.
Someone will be in touch in due course.

I would advise that you collate all evidence and intelligence that would support the claims you are
making against the court.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Smithey
Police Sergeant
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull, HU5 5SF
Switchboard: 101
Tel: 01482 578333
Fax: 01482 305004

This matter is being dealt with by:

Professional Standards Branch

professionalstandardsadmin@humberside.pnn.
police.uk
www.humberside.police.uk

IX/00799/15 23 November 2017

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN

Dear Mr

Thank you for your complaint dated 12 November 2015, which has now been
received in the Professional Standards Branch.

The issue(s) you have raised are being considered and you will be contacted again
in the near future. If you have any urgent queries surrounding this matter please
ring the number above for assistance, quoting the reference number.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED


From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "Smithey, Graeme 1226" <Graeme.Smithey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries"
<enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; <owen.bowcott@guardian.co.uk>;
<pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 02 December 2015 15:40
Attach: Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
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.

Yours sincerely

.
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS OF Ref: / /
PERJURY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

IN THE GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES’ COURT


CIVIL JURISDICTION

STATEMENT

Below is the list of supporting documents (“SD”) which accompany this statement. It is
important that all are to hand, and a copy requested in the case of any missing document. SDs
#1 to #24 relate directly to this matter and those which are relevant but not specifically
referred to are a numbered #25 to #31 in the list and relate to previous concerns raised with
Humberside police on a similar theme.

LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (SD)

No # DATE DESCRIPTION FILE NAME

1 1 Oct 2015 Defendant’s representations – proof of Defendants Grounds of


payment; summons costs Appeal.pdf

2 6 May 2015 High court Judgment in the matter of an R (on the application of
appeal of Council Tax court summons costs Reverend Nicolson) v
Tottenham Magistrates.doc

3 22 July 2013 Draft case stated for appeal to the high court Case stated Draft.pdf

5 16 Oct 2015 NELC (Claimant) - Witness Statement Alan French - Witness


Statement.pdf

5 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 1 (Defendant’s 2015/16 NELC1.pdf


Council Tax bill)

6 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 2 (Council Tax reminder) NELC2.pdf

7 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 3 (Council Tax second NELC3.pdf


reminder)
8 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 4 (Council Tax final NELC4.pdf
notice)

9 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 5 (Council Tax summons) NELC5.pdf

10 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 6 (Peters v Anderson - NELC6.pdf


case law)

11 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 7 (Devaynes v Noble - NELC7.pdf


case law)

12 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 8 (Cory Brothers & Co - NELC8.pdf


case law)

13 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 9 (Defendant’s email to NELC9.pdf


Claimant)

14 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 10 (Extract from Bailiff NELC10.pdf


help forum)
15 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 11 (Extract from Legal NELC11.pdf
Beagle forum)
16 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 12 (Contents of letters to NELC12.pdf
and from Admin Court Office at Leeds)
17 16 Oct 2015 Claimant’s Exhibit 13 (Leeson v Leeson - NELC13.pdf
case law)

18 29 Oct 2015 Defendant’s representations – appropriation Defendants (Supplementary)


of payments; evidence of costs appealed Grounds of Appeal.pdf

19 – Chronology (case bundle draft document - Case Stated Chronology


high court application) draft.pdf

20 – Consent order (case bundle draft document - Case Stated Consent order
high court application) draft.pdf

21 – Grounds of appeal (case bundle draft Case Stated Grounds of


document - high court application) appeal draft.pdf

22 – Skeleton Argument (case bundle draft Case Stated Skeleton


document - high court application) Argument draft.pdf

23 2 Sept 2014 Complaint to Advisory Committee Judicial complaint 2 Sept


(Magistrates / Justices Clerk’s conduct) 2014.pdf

24 7 Nov 2015 Complaint to Judicial Conduct Investigations 7 Nov 2015 – ocj-complaint-


Office(Judge’s conduct) 0913.pdf

25 2 Aug 2011 Concerns about the automated procedure of Fake court Summons 2
issuing council tax summonses ‘en masse’ August 2011.doc
26 31 Aug 2011 Concerns about the automated procedure of Fake court Summons 31
issuing council tax summonses ‘en masse’ August 2011.doc

27 20 March 2012 Concerns about the automated procedure of Fake court Summons 20
issuing council tax summonses ‘en masse’ March 2012.doc

28 5 Sept 2013 Business Rates (NNDR) summons fraud Business Rates summons
fraud 05 Sept 2013.pdf

29 25 Oct 2013 Highlighting effects of benefit reforms on cost FOI data 25 October
income / inappropriately funding council tax 2013.pdf
admin
30 First document referred to in “FOI data 25 Total Cost of CT Admin.pdf
– October 2013.pdf”

31 Second document referred to in “FOI data 25 FOI costs letters.pdf


– October 2013.pdf”

INTRODUCTION

1. The issues raised here will no doubt be considered by the police to be civil rather than
criminal matters because of the association with the recovery of council tax, for which
the recovery of such debt falls under the “Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure” of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Perjury however 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.

2. The seriousness of the matter is compounded by the obvious knowledge by the judge
that a false and corrupt statement had been made but nevertheless proceeded to find in
the council’s favour.

3. 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 below para 68).

BACKGROUND

4. North East Lincolnshire council (NELC) essentially instituted court proceedings to


enforce council tax liability even though payments were made in sufficient amount to
meet the legal obligation to pay the sums set out on the demand notice relating to my
2015/16 Council Tax liability. Ironically, at various times the account was in credit due
to over payment, but at all other times the account was up to date.
5. A billing authority is able to exploit its council tax processing system which allocates
payments to the earliest debt (if one exists) where payments are unspecified.

Note: A specified payment, for the purpose of NELC's processing system, is a payment
that matches exactly the instalment amount or an arranged payment plan.

6. A billing authority is advantaged by the costs generated for making complaint to the
Magistrates' court for engineering a “non-payment” scenario, by making a decision not
to re-allocate a payment which a taxpayer obviously intends reducing the indebtedness
of the current year's liability.

7. NELC exploited its processing system in exactly this way in my case to divert a sum
obviously intended to reduce the indebtedness of the current year’s liability to a sum
which was outstanding from the 2012/13 tax year and so engineered default. The
criminal implications are clear as in the context of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 (the
test of honesty), there is no doubt that even if the council held genuine belief that its
actions were morally justified, it must have realised that ordinary people would consider
them dishonest.

Disputed sum outstanding from previous year

8. The sum outstanding from 2012/13 related to court costs for a similar matter involving
NELC making complaint for non payment of council tax. That sum was disputed (the
costs) and an application to state a case for an appeal to the High Court was submitted.
That sum was suspended pending the court's decision (yet to be determined) so under no
circumstances was it permissible for NELC to exploit its processing system for
engineering default by allocating payment to that sum. A letter dated 19 July 2013 sent
by NELC’s Legal Department in connection with the claim for a mandatory order, to
which will be referred later, contains the following (emphasis added):

“Yourself v Grimsby Magistrates Court & NELC

I write further to the legal proceedings issued by yourself at Leeds High Court
against Grimsby & Cleethorpes Magistrates Court, naming North East
Lincolnshire Council as an interested party. The papers have been passed to me
upon Mrs Conolly's departure from employment with the Local Authority.

The purpose of my writing to you is to inform you that the £60 court costs, which
you dispute, will be suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. At the
completion of those proceedings, dependent on the Court's decision, the fee will
either be withdrawn from your account or will remain outstanding to the Local
Authority.

A copy of this letter has been sent to the Leeds High Court for their information.

Yours sincerely
for Group Manager Legal & Democratic Services”

9. Even if the costs were not suspended, the sum (court costs) did not form part of any
year's council tax liability for which its system would have a parameter set to accept
specific payment (paras 47–52, SD #18). Moreover, if NELC had lifted the
suspension, it could not simply be recovered by diverting payments made on the current
year's council tax because the sum then would be under enforcement. In those
circumstances, a decision about which one of a range of enforcement measures
empowered by the liability order would have had to be made to enforce the sum and
communicated to me. Despite NELC stating in a number of correspondence that I would
be notified if and when it were to resume enforcement, it never at any point conveyed
this to me (paras 74–79, SD #18).

10. An additional concern is why it is that one of the exhibits ‘NELC1’ (copy of my current
council tax bill) itemises the sum as a separate balance from the current liability and
describes it as a sum ‘subject to court proceedings’. NELC has at the same time as
claiming to have no reason to believe that the costs were being disputed, submitted an
item of evidence to the court that states that they are. This was additional to being
highlighted in my initial representations (para 20, SD #1) which the judge missed or
ignored. The Council Tax bill states as follows:

“Memorandum Note
Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance
As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00
60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings”

Missing papers

11. On 16 October 2015, NELC served court papers by electronic transfer on myself and the
Magistrates court in respect of the 30 October 2015 court hearing. Fourteen files made
up the complete set of documents but only 9 of those which included a 'Witness
Statement' (SD #5) and exhibits 'NELC1' to 'NELC7' and 'NELC9' were successfully
transferred. Exhibits 'NELC8' and 'NELC10' to 'NELC13' were not transferred. Shortly
after NELC sent an email explaining it was having difficulty serving the court papers
and provided a link and instructions about how to download the files from an
account which NELC had created on its system which required me to log on with details
it provided after which I needed to change the password to one of my choice in order to
access the information.

12. I was suspicious about why it was, that only certain files could not be served, and not
happy about entering sensitive information that might get into the wrong hands, it had
after all been able to transfer most of the papers by email attachment. I identified the 5
missing files and asked if those could be emailed but made it clear I was not willing to
create an account to access the files in the way suggested.

13. On 19 October, NELC replied and explained it was having difficulties accessing the
electronic file and wanted to arrange a visit to my home so the paper files instead could
be handed over.

14. I was suspicious about why a simple task was causing such difficulties and it crossed
my mind that there might be something NELC wanted to propose (off the record) in
view of the compelling evidence against it, or if not that some other ulterior motive to
make contact. In any event, it was pretty obvious from the context of the 'Witness
Statement' that the missing content could be sourced elsewhere, for example where the
content related to case authority. NELC was therefore informed that it was unnecessary
to deliver the case bundle in paper form.

15. Exhibit 'NELC12' was identified in paragraph 69 of the Witness Statement to be a letter
on which NELC relied to justify having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were
being disputed [because I had withdrawn my] application for the Judicial review of the
costs'. As it was indicated to be the letter sent to the Administrative Court Office dated
20th November 2013 my email records verified that NELC had been sent a copy and
acknowledged by way of a 'read receipt' sent 22 November 2013.

16. I was satisfied that not having exhibit 'NELC12' would cause no disadvantage. The
letter, however (Annex C [C-6], SD #18) does not give any cause to lead NELC to
believe that the High Court appeal (case stated) challenging the summons costs had
been withdrawn. The letter was in response to the Administrative Court's
recommendation (Annex C [C-5], SD #18) to withdraw the judicial review claim as the
process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case (SD #3) and deemed there
no longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was
underway. The judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application
to state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the
Magistrates' court to conform. The judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory
order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case stated appeal challenging the summons
costs has never been withdrawn.

17. It is clear from the context of that letter alone that it was only the judicial review claim
for a mandatory order that was withdrawn and that the High Court appeal challenging
the summons costs was still being pursued (draft bundle, SD #19 to #22). It is
inconceivable that the judge would have had difficulty understanding this, therefore the
reason he refused to, reinforces the assertion that he was biased in the favour of NELC.

18. The bias toward NELC was made plain from the way the judge turned the matter from
being a question of whether the appeal had been withdrawn to whether evidence could
be produced to support the appeal was still live. The appropriation of monies was
supported by NELC on the basis that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn, and on
that basis alone. Upon realising that NELC had made a false and corrupt 'Witness
Statement', the judge offered assistance (as a way of justifying granting a liability order)
by introducing a defence for those actions, on which NELC had not sought to rely,
thereby seeking to pervert the course of justice. The question of whether the case was
live was not a factor in NELC's decision making to engineer court proceedings; the
decision upon which NELC misappropriated payment was based on its false claim that
it believed the appeal was withdrawn.

19. When asked if I could provide evidence that the appeal was still live (as opposed to not
being withdrawn) the judge prevented me raising the matter that NELC had
acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read receipts' returned on
15 January, 14 February and 23 April 2014 in respect of letters dated 10 January, 13
February and 22 April 2014. Those letters, which were copies of correspondence sent to
the Justices' Clerk contained hard evidence that the high court appeal was still
being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for mandatory order was
withdrawn (Annex C [C-8], [C-9] and [C11], SD #18).

20. Acknowledgement of letter being read, sent to the Justices’ Clerk, querying the failure
to deliver the final signed case stated sent on 10 January (Annex C [C-8]):
“From: Mike (Gov Connect)
To: xxxx
Sent: 15 January 2014 11:50
Subject: Read: Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)

Your message

To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)


Subject: Re: Representations on Draft Case - CrimPR 64.3 (6)
Sent: 10 January 2014 15:09:48

was read on 15 January 2014 11:50:32.”

21. Acknowledgement of second letter being read, sent to the Justices’ Clerk, querying the
failure to deliver the final signed case stated sent on 13 February (Annex C [C-9]):

“From: Mike (Gov Connect)


To: xxxx
Sent: 14 February 2014 11:29 AM
Subject: Read: Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)

Your message

To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)


Subject: Case Stated - Recognizance (re, North East Lincolnshire Council)
Sent: 13 February 2014 16:18:48 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London

was read on 14 February 2014 11:29:00.”

22. Acknowledgement of letter being read, sent to the Justices’ Clerk, requesting certificate
stating that the application has been refused sent on 13 February (Annex C [C-11]):

“From: Mike (Gov Connect)


To: xxxx
Sent: 23 April 2014 15:44
Subject: Read: Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North
East Lincolnshire Council)

Your message

To: Raven, Mike (Gov Connect)


Subject: Re: Certificate of Refusal to state a case - s.111(5) MCA 1980 (re, North East
Lincolnshire Council)
Sent: 22 April 2014 14:48:32 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London

was read on 23 April 2014 16:44:20.

23. The judge's argument in favour of NELC was apparently based on the length of time
elapsing since the Justices' Clerk gave an undertaking to set out in writing the position
regarding the appeal and advising on the next steps which were never acted on (Annex
C [C10], SD #18).

24. The judge ironically exploited the Magistrates Court's failure to comply with the
relevant procedure rules, thus preventing/delaying the case coming before the high
court, in order to justify granting an order for which NELC fraudulently applied. In a
twist of fate, had the appeal proceeded, it is completely rational the high court would
have made similar judgment as in a case raising the same issue (see Nicolson v
Tottenham Magistrates, SD #2) and found the Magistrates Court's granting of the costs
unlawful. Crucially, had the Magistrates' court not sought to pervert the course of justice
in that appeal (SD #23), the disputed costs would never have been incorporated into my
council tax account (suspended or otherwise) to enable NELC to fraudulently allocate
payment to, in order to engineer a further recovery cycle (and costs) for recovering the
sum.

25. It was conveyed to the judge that the matter in need of addressing surrounded the issues
raised in the argument he had made in support of NELC, which was the misconduct of
the Justices' Clerk that has led to wasting three years of my time. The efforts set out in
the representations (paras 7–15, SD #18) to ensure that the case advanced leaves no
doubt that the delay or prevention of the appeal coming before the court was in any way
my responsibility.

OBTAINING MISSING PAPERS

26. The missing court papers were requested again on 2 November 2015 (after the court
hearing). I was considering the options to take the matter further and wanted the files in
preparation for providing as evidence for whichever route was decided upon. NELC was
able to transfer them on this occasion and on viewing them it was obvious (especially
with regard to exhibit ‘NELC12’), that contrary to my initial view, I was disadvantaged
by not having all the papers.

27. Exhibit ‘NELC12’, which contained my letter withdrawing the claim for a mandatory
order and another from the Administrative Court acknowledging that instruction,
provided additional evidence that NELC had wilfully made a statement material in the
proceeding, which was known not to be true. The letters were not copies of the original;
it can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the contents of that submission were
obtained from the same source that recorded publicly everything relevant to the matter
(Annex B, SD #18). The source was a public help forum dealing with council tax issues,
the same forum which NELC had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits
‘NELC11’.

28. The letters contained in exhibit ‘NELC12’ had been redacted and matched the entries
that were posted on the public forum (Annex B, SD #24). The forum is the only place
from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of
the letters which NELC submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.

29. Clearly NELC had not sought the original letters and had presumably as a short cut
referred to the website where all correspondence connected with the matter (albeit
redacted) where conveniently in one place. It is likely that if NELC had made use of the
forum to produce its submission, it would have been informed from the regular updates
posted that the case stated appeal was still very much being pursued.

30. Whether NELC did refer generally to the forum is not the deciding factor that would
determine that it knowingly made a false statement; it would however reinforce the
allegations. The crux of the matter is that the post from which the content was sourced
(‘NELC12’) was accompanied with some commentary (see below) which reinforced the
matter in itself:

“Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.”

31. Contents of exhibits ‘NELC10’ and ‘NELC 11’ where also sourced from public forums
but were produced from screen shots and included information such as the date to
indicate when the websites were accessed. The content in exhibit NELC12 was not
obviously produced from screen shots, but although possible it is much more likely that
the text would simply have been copied and pasted, retaining the same formatting.
32. These exhibits where referred to in paragraphs 66 and 67 of NELC’s Witness Statement
to make the point known to the court that I was aware about the need to make an
election of payment and that I had knowledge about how the Northgate system works.

33. It is with disbelief that NELC could make the assumption that I intended to allocate
monies to the oldest sum (and the judge agree) when it is self evident from those
exhibits that my disputes, past and present, surround my objection to monies being
allocated that way. Clearly NELC has incriminated itself by submitting material which
fully supports it knowingly misallocating monies to a sum against my express wishes.

34. The remaining missing court papers all provided the case authority on which NELC
sought to rely in its Witness Statement. Though it was anticipated sourcing these cases
would not cause undue difficulty, the complete judgments were not found, only
references in other cases, which though time consuming, provided an outline of the
issues and enough to piece together a response (paras 48–73, SD #18).

35. Exhibit ‘NELC8’ which is referred to in paras 60 and 61 of NELC’s Witness Statement
relies on the case; ‘Cory Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. Owners of the Turkish Steamship
"Mecca" 1897 AC 286’. In para 61 (Witness Statement) the partial sentence on which
NELC sought to rely was this: ‘When a debtor pays money on account to his creditor
and makes no appropriation to particular items, the creditor has the right of
appropriation and may exercise the right up to the last moment, by action or otherwise’.

36. However, on viewing the exhibit after obtaining it post court hearing, there are several
references to the case which it relied on in exhibit ‘NELC7’: Devaynes V Noble 1816
merivale 529 (the Clayton case). NELC relied on that case to defend that its Council
Tax processing system allocates payments correctly if no election is made, i.e., the
earliest debts are paid first (paras 58-59, SD #5).

37. Returning to exhibit ‘NELC8’, it is revealed in the paragraph from which NELC quoted
in part, that the rule in Clayton's case ‘does not apply to a case where there is no
account current between the parties’:

“When a debtor pays money on account to his creditor and makes no appropriation
to particular items, the creditor has the right of appropriation and may exercise the
right up to the last moment, by action or otherwise, the application of the money is
governed, not by any rigid rule of law, but by the intention of the creditor,
expressed implied or presumed. The rule in Clayton's case, (1816) 1 Mer. 585
does not apply to a case where there is no account current between the parties, nor
where from an account rendered or other circumstances, it appears that the creditor
intended, not to make any appropriation, but to reserve the right.”

38. The judgment in exhibit NELC8 further clarifies the kind of account which the rule in
the Clayton case does not apply to in a reference to Sir W. Grant Master of the Rolls
judgment in Clayton where he distinguished one debt and account type from another:

“They were all cases of distinct insulated debts, between which a plain line of
separation could be drawn. But this is the case of a banking account, where all the
sums paid in form one blended fund, the parts of which have no longer any
distinct existence.”

39. The case authority, on which NELC’s software supplier bases its allocation rules with
regard to allocating unspecified payments to the oldest debt, cannot apply in a system
whereby the accounts relate, as they do in council tax, to ‘distinct insulated debts,
between which a plain line of separation could be drawn’.

40. Exhibit ‘NELC13’ which is referred to in para 72 of NELC’s Witness Statement relies
on the case; ‘Leeson v. Leeson (1936) 2 K.B. 156’. The context of that case is not clear
from what is detailed in its statement which is limited to the following: ‘an
appropriation of a payment cannot be inferred from an intention in the mind of the
debtor un-communicated to the creditor. It can only be inferred from circumstances
known to both parties’.

41. Again, after obtaining the exhibit and viewing the judgment, it is clear that the authority
on which NELC sought to rely should not have been any assistance as it is obvious from
the circumstances, to which sum payment was intended. Despite not having the exhibit
‘NELC13’, some relevant information was sourced (paras 53–61, SD #18).

42. Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew to be false, the judge acted
outside his powers by granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability
do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that
there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty
(especially not for one’s own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this
case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing
from mine about how, and in what manner bills are paid.

43. He made this obvious by raising irrelevant matters which were no ones business but my
own concerning the number of transactions, in what sum those payments were made and
the method used for paying council tax instalments. He implied that using the
enforcement process as punishment was legitimate for not paying the way NELC
preferred by the concern, which drove him to the point of enquiring if I held a bank
account and why payments weren’t made by standing order like everyone else.
Evidently, it was for my objection to Direct Debit as a means of paying bills that the
judge viewed it warranted for NELC to exploit its dysfunctional council tax processing
system as a means of defrauding me.

44. The bias could not have been more obvious when the judge referred to previous
maladministration (Annex J, SD #1), similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for
which 27 days was taken by NELC to respond and resolve the matter, by which time
reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all
recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be my fault for NELC’s gross error. The
judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious
statement which was that NELC, as a consequence, had a right to remove the statutory
instalment entitlement for subsequent year’s liability and demand the full sum up front.

45. The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to
be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing me into
conceding and making payments in line with the NELC's preferred method.

TURNING BLIND EYE TO REPRESENTATIONS CONTESTING COSTS

46. The Magistrates’ court has no discretion in the amount of costs it orders in respect of a
complaint made to the justices in the matter of council tax liability. The regulations
restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in
respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown
(Annex F, SD #1) contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs
claimed were not incurred by NELC in respect of instituting the complaint in my case.

47. It was explained to him (the judge) that the costs itemised referred largely to council
resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and
subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the issue of my summons.
A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written
evidence (paras 6–7 and 27–117, SD #1) to support that the summons costs as applied
on making complaint could not have been incurred by NELC, as set out in its
breakdown (Annex F, SD #1), therefore fraudulent.

48. The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. There was nothing
in that calculation that could remotely satisfy the court that the expenditure attributed to
its standard costs was referable to the court application at the prescribed time, neither in
my individual case nor as an average of those against whom complaint was made.
However, the spreadsheet is indicative of a breakdown of NELC’s expenditure for
council tax enforcement and recovery (paras 67–72, SD #1) which would incorporate
impermissible costs. The application, for which NELC may claim costs, simply involves
a process to obtain the court’s permission to enforce payment and nothing more. There
is no vehicle through which NELC may lawfully recharge expenditure it incurs to the
defendant beyond that process.

49. The law further restricts costs with the provision for incrementally applying them, first
in a sum for making complaint and the further amount (if required) on making the
application. Singly applying standard costs in respect of making complaint would be
lawful only if the authority were to forfeit the element of expenditure it incurs
subsequently in respect of the court application.

50. It is noted that the judge allowed NELC to succeed in ‘pulling the wool’ by convincing
him that the costs had been incurred and therefore permissible but with no justification
that the expenditure was referable to the relevant legislation. It is without doubt that the
ignorance displayed by the judge was a show put on as a means to impress on the court
that the fraudulent claim was legitimate. It is alleged that the charade was to avoid being
the judge responsible for the inevitable uncovering of the massive scale fraud committed
nationally by local authorities and enabled by Her Majesty’s Court Service.

51. His acquiescence was expressed first by the way the figures, though irrelevant, appeared
to him to be comprehensively set out. It is obvious however that the elaborate
presentation was for duping anyone having to scrutinise and endorse the figures. NELC
had even prided itself on the accounts having authenticity in regard their lawfulness by
attaching auditor approval when in fact the figures were not subject to audit and
NELC’s external audit contractor (KPMG) was not willing to have a reference to
District Audit on the Council’s website. However, it is clear that had the figures been
subject to audit (and it is not seen why they are not) the evidence was such that NELC's
claims were not reasonable in the context of the relevant law which governs costs. It
would therefore have been appropriate that KPMG apply to the court for a declaration
that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission
Act 1998.

52. In another demonstration of over willingness to accept the figure, the judge attributed
justifying the costs on the basis of the materially irrelevant fact that the ‘cost per
summons’ which on the breakdown presented to him had been rounded down from
£63.05 to £60.00. He had, it appears, purposely allowed this to divert attention from the
relevant matter which was that the majority of the costs were impermissible under the
regulations. The judge did not, or it appears he did not read or account for the
representations that showed without any doubt that the vast majority of costs were
unlawful (paras 73–115, SD #1).

Inflating the ‘standard costs’ to factor in bad debt element

53. NELC’s breakdown provided the required data to determine the amount of bad debt
arising from waived or unrecoverable costs that was added to the standard sum. At least
42% of taxpayers against whom complaint was made were summonsed without costs
applied which had the effect of inflating the standard summons costs by around £25 for
those who did have them applied (paras 79–82, SD #1).

54. The breakdown also provided information to inform the person scrutinising it that the
gross recoverable costs under the ‘Council Tax’ budget was attributable to resources
taken up dealing with queries relating to the recovery. The amount was taken (budget
figure around £0.8m) as a ratio of calls arising from summonses to calls arising from
reminders that do not result in a summons. Based on the Council’s computing method,
this adds £18 to the cost per summons. None of this was lawfully incurred by NELC in
respect of my summons simply because the calculation was founded on assumptions
that each person against whom complaint was made had taken up resources by engaging
with staff in some way in matters connected with the summons (paras 83–86, SD #1).

55. Similarly the element attributed to the standard sum from the recoverable costs under
the ‘Debt Recovery’ budget adds a sum (£31) which has been determined unlawfully.
Assumptions are made that each person against whom complaint is made gives cause
for recovery staff to carry out their various functions. In my case no resources were
called upon to negotiate or re-schedule any payment plan and the whole element of costs
relevant to the ‘Debt Recovery’ budget can not be lawfully justified (paras 87–102, SD
#1). The same goes for the ‘Control & Monitoring’ budget which accounts for around
£10 of the standard costs. As a consequence of having no re-scheduled payment plan, it
is fraudulent to claim costs for monitoring one (paras 103–111, SD #1).

Costs to be no more than that incurred by the authority in any individual case

56. The amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case must be no more than that
reasonably incurred by the billing authority (para 51, SD #1). Therefore, if NELC
wanted to take advantage of streamlining the administration process by applying a
standard sum in all cases (paras 47–51, SD #1), in order for it to be done lawfully, it
would need to forfeit each element of expenditure it incurs that is not common to every
application (the majority of costs which are accounted for in its breakdown).

57. In other words, a standard sum could not exceed that incurred by the authority in a case
where the least expenditure is attributed, which would in practice relate to a taxpayer
settling his outstanding debt on receipt of a summons without contacting the council on
any issue. Deriving a figure therefore from the ‘Gross Recoverable costs’ which is split
between an estimated number of summons, can not be lawful; even less so if the number
of summons is reduced to factor in an estimate for those withdrawn, waived and those in
respect of unrecoverable costs. The least cost case is the only basis on which to
determine a standard sum if the aim is to eliminate the administrative burden of
calculating the costs in each case, whilst at the same time complying with the
regulations which require that the costs be no more than that incurred by the authority in
any individual case.

If the Regulations were applied lawfully, the consequences would be that the majority of
‘Council Tax’ (£191,730), ‘Debt Recovery’ (£327,480) and the ‘Control & Monitoring’
costs (£109,380) would not be permissible in respect of re-charging expenditure for
instituting the complaint. What is set-out above should have been enough to alert the
judge that NELC's claims were not reasonable in the context of the relevant law and
should therefore have, as legally required, sought to award lower costs accordingly. The
number of taxpayers summonsed in relation to the monthly council tax liability hearing
held on 2 October 2015 totalled 942. If the standard £60 costs were applied in each case
there would have been raised in excess of £56k which would account for approximately
10 times an amount had they been properly referable to the law governing them.
Unquestionable Bias

58. Representations submitted to the court argued a case in the context of the relevant
enforcement power which was ignored in its entirety by the judge who made his
decision in favour of NELC from briefly viewing a copy of irrelevant accounts relating
to its council tax enforcement and recovery budget.

59. The ease with which the judge was swayed in favour of NELC was demonstrated with
the statement that implied that the costs must be “reasonable” from a reference made to
other authorities’ standard costs, and that the ruling in Nicolson v Tottenham
Magistrates (SD #2) had not determined that the level was unlawful. From that it is
clear that he had not read/understood (or pretended not to have) the judgment provided
as a supporting document, which at paragraph 57 said; ‘looking to see whether the costs
were broadly in line with costs being charged by other local authorities was all well and
good, but it was not enough to discharge the court’s obligations’ (paras 47–51, SD #1).
And in the judgment the distinction was clear at para 52 that ‘establishing that the costs
were reasonably incurred is not the same thing as establishing that the costs were
reasonable in amount’.

60. It is obvious from the comment referring to the Nicolson case that the point had been
missed as the issue did not exclusively revolve around the level. What was provided in
that judgment regarding the relevant regulations was ‘some general guidance as to their
interpretation and scope’ (para 36, SD #2). The degree to which that guidance and
interpretation extended is evident in the judgment from paragraph 33 onwards. There
was nothing in that breakdown which would suggest anything other than that it being an
account of its expenditure incurred in connection with council tax enforcement and
recovery.

Costs set at levels for improper purposes

61. It was summarised (paras 118–130, SD #1) how NELC historically manipulated costs
unlawfully in order to generate income to meet a number of different objectives. The
apparent blind eye the judge turned to this can not give the public confidence in the
justice system. It is one thing having local authorities operating fraudulently but quite
another when the Magistrates’ court blatantly endorses it.

62. In 2001/02 court costs had been set with the admitted intention of encouraging prompt
payment (as well as generating additional income) that came with the threat of a more
severe financial penalty. It is well established that costs should be awarded as
compensation, not as punishment. In R v Highgate Justices ex parte Petrou [1954] 1
ALL ER 406 it was held that costs should not exceed the proper costs incurred and
should not be a penalty.

63. Another summary set out that in 2002/03 summons costs were increased by 50% in
order to raise additional revenue to meet funding to pay for additional staff to ensure a
backlog of work that had arisen due to changes in the IT system were addressed. In
Attfield v the London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin), it was held that a
local authority must not attempt to raise revenue where there is no clear statutory power
to do so. In the present case, the statutory power expressly limits costs that may be
claimed to the expenditure incurred by the Council in connection with instituting the
complaint. The decision to increase summons costs did not arise because of an increase
in the cost of instituting the complaint, rather for the clear intention of funding
additional resources to overcome the backlog of work that had arisen in the
administration of Council Tax etc., due to delays in implementing a new IT system.

64. Another summarised how NELC manipulated court costs to provide additional income
as an alternative to charging for non-statutory services. The summons costs were
increased in preference to an alternative proposal of introducing a charge for garden
waste collections. Summons costs were therefore increased disproportionately, with no
statutory power to do so, in order to plug a gap in its finances for the purposes of
offsetting expenditure for waste services.

65. Finally the existence of a budgeted income stream for court costs was highlighted which
was evident from published reports showing outturn variances for this income. A report
relating to the 2004/05 financial year indicated that the costs were set at a level such that
a significant surplus was achievable, which in that year amounted to £0.125 million. The
Council had therefore raised revenue for an improper purpose, namely to prop up other
budgets. Apart from being fundamentally unlawful, the whole approach suggests that
the system is clearly open to abuse with income targets unquestionably creating a
perverse incentive to summons.

CONCLUSION

66. What has been allowed to happen, with the court as an accomplice can only be
described as daylight robbery committed with arrogant impunity by NELC. There is no
doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had
before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made.
Granting an order therefore made him complicit in NELC's criminal actions that sought
to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding me with an attached
claim of costs.

67. The criminally obtained court order was not the only issue, as the costs awarded were
fraudulent in amount. The only logical reason for the judge denying existence of the
representations contesting them is because had they been considered, it’s not seen how
they could have been feasibly challenged. The judge’s responsibility entailed overseeing
the full transfer of £56,000 from defendants to NELC in respect of that one hearing no
matter how fraudulent the claim. A proper consideration of the evidence therefore
would have made that job impossible and why it was ignored. The crucial role played by
Grimsby Magistrates’ court in ensuring the income generated for NELC continues at
current levels would explain why in respect of the High Court application appealing
these costs the court has prevented proceedings for three years through means of lies
and deception.

68. There are a number of correspondence itemised in the list of supporting documents
relating to previous concerns raised with Humberside police on a similar theme which
were never properly investigated then (SD #25–31). The same can be said for concerns
relating to bailiff fraud (not included). Humberside police’s Economic crime unit has,
over a number of years, concentrated its effort into challenging the evidence gathered to
avoid dealing with the allegations thus protecting the accused and enabling them
without consequence to continue their criminal activity. It would therefore be reasonable
to suspect that Humberside police, along with Grimsby Magistrates court and NELC is
complicit in the fraudulent raising of revenue through unscrupulous means. In light of
that, it would seem a conflict of interest if Humberside police were to deal with these
allegations and so it would seem a reasonable suggestion for another police force to do
so. This is especially the case with it being my intention to pursue action against all
those officers who have been party to the misconduct, cover-ups, negligence and lies
etc. There is in any event, no reason to have confidence that the matter would be
properly dealt with by Humberside police’s Economic crime officers as I’ve found to
my cost from several years being fobbed off by them.
69. The allegations which point to a criminal conspiracy between NELC and the court are
summarised below:

NELC for committing;

a. Perjury – by making a statement (material in the proceedings) that was


known to be false with the intention misleading the court to justify
misallocating payment to a disputed sum

b. Fraud – by engineering default for the current year enabling a further court
application for the purposes of attaching a claim of costs and potential
bailiff charges which have been threatened already in a letter dated 8
November 2015

c. Fraud – by claiming a level of costs both in my individual case and in


general which are not provided for under the Council Tax (Administration
and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

District Judge Daniel Curtis for;

a. Perverting the course of justice – knowing that before him was evidence
that a false and corrupt statement had been made

b. Complicity – in NELC’s fraudulent application for liability order by,

i) granting the order knowing that a false statement had been made

ii) ignoring evidence contesting payment allocation laws were breached

ii) ignoring evidence contesting costs (level) breaching the Council Tax
(Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

70. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this 2nd day of December 2015

Signed:
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
Priory Road 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/00461/15/TMW/LAW 8 December 2015

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire

Dear Mr

May I refer to the complaint received on 12 November 2015 about the conduct of
an officer(s) 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/00461/15 Case Recorded 08/12/15

COMPLAINANT
Title Mr Address
Surname Grimsby
Forenames North East Lincolnshire

ALLEGATION(S)
No 1
Recorded 08/12/15
Type Other neglect or failure of duty
Location The Hub
Allegation The complainant alleges that an officer wrongly informed him that a matter
Allegation Result which he wanted to report is a civil matter, when he believes it to be a criminal
matter.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED


NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Poiice Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU55SF
Te1No:01482
560101
Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101

Communities, Criminals, Makififl 9 Difference


This matter is being dealt with by:
Inspector 5521 Harvey
Hessle Police Station
psb@humberside.pnn.police.uk
www.humhArsirlA.nolicA.uk

CO 461/15 17th December 2015

DearM __ ~

With reference to the complaint you made on 12th November 2015.

I write to inform you that your complaint has been formally recorded under the Police
Reform Act 2002 as amended by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act
2011 and in accordance with that legislation I enclose a copy of the record of
complaint for your information.
In accordance with the Acts the complaint is considered suitable for Local Resolution
and the file has been forwarded to Inspector 5521 Harveyat Hessle Police Station to
be dealt with. You will be contacted in due course.

It is important to note that if you fail to cooperate with the Investigating Officer this
may have an adverse effect on the outcome of your complaint.

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
",..c

,;~:::--,

lC Scaife
\l

Detective Chief Inspector


From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>;
<Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 20 December 2015 12:18
Attach: Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
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.

Yours sincerely

.
From: <postmaster@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 20 December 2015 12:18
Attach: ATT00178.dat; ATT00179.eml
Subject: Undeliverable: Perjury to commit fraud - CO 461/15

Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

Alan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk
The email address that you entered couldn't be found. Check the address and try resending the
message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.

Diagnostic information for administrators:

Generating server: humberside.pnn.police.uk

Alan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk
#550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: <Craig.Scaife@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 20 December 2015 12:34
Attach: Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
Subject: Fw: Perjury to commit fraud - CO 461/15

Dear Mr Scaife

I appear to have the wrong email address for Inspector Harvey 5521.

I would appreciate if you could forward this on so he is in receipt of the email and attachment.

Yours sincerely

From: "Scaife, Craig 5686" <Craig.Scaife@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: ‘“ ”’ < @gmail.com>
Sent: 21 December 2015 08:55
Subject: RE: Perjury to commit fraud - CO 461/15

Mr
As requested I have sent the email on to allan.harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Kind regards
Craig
From: "Harvey, Allan 5521" <Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 30 December 2015 13:14
Subject: FW: Complaint CO/461/15

Mr ,

It appears that my previous e-mail may have been corrupted by the mail delivery system. It should
have read:

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.

I apologise for any typos in the previous mail.

Many thanks

Allan Harvey
Inspector 5521
Force Incident Manager
Hub Command
Humberside Police
Hessle Road Police Station
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "Harvey, Allan 5521" <Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries"
<enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:03
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.

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.

Yours sincerely

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "Harvey, Allan 5521" <Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 12 January 2016 14:21
Subject: Fw: Complaint CO/461/15

Mr Harvey

I would like assurance that the email (see below) sent 30 Dec 15 is receiving attention and would
appreciate being updated of any progress.

Yours sincerely

.
From: "Harvey, Allan 5521" <Allan.Harvey@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
To: “’ ’” < @gmail.com>
Sent: 13 January 2016 08:02
Subject: RE: Complaint CO/461/15

Mr ,

You should be receiving my response from the Professional Standards Department imminently.

Kindest regards

Inspector Harvey

From: "Walmsley, Tony 8637" <Tony.Walmsley@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: “’ ’” < @gmail.com>
Sent: 13 January 2016 12:51
Attach: CO.150461.LR letter. .130115.pdf; LR Appeal Key Facts.doc
Subject: Complaint against Police - CO 461/15 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO
DESCRIPTOR]

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

Dear Mr

Please find attached a letter in relation to the complaint against Police which you made on 12
November 2015.

Regards

Tony Walmsley

Tony Walmsley 8637


Caseworker
Professional Standards Branch
Humberside Police HQ
NOT PROTECnVELY MAl Humberside Police
Professional Standards Branch
Police Headquarters
PrloryRoad
Hull
HU55SF

Switchboard 101
Te' 01482516101
Fax 01482 305004

CO 461/15 13 January 2016

Dear M,

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 our attention. This has been passed to me to assess and respond to you.

Your allegation has been assessed to be one falling under the category of neglect or
failure in duty and has been assessed by the Professional Standards Branch as
being a complaint that can be dealt with under the Local Resolution process.

I note your response to my recent e-mail that you do not wish to engage in this
process. I am able to complete the complaint in this manner and you do have a right
of appeal as indicated below.

I have sought legal advice from our Force Solicitors in respect of the points you
make.

I understand that this matter has been heard in a court of law. The advice I have
obtained is that the issues you raise may be appeal points that could be raised at
any subsequent appeal hearings.

Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so


comes from the court themselves.

The judge in the case is protected in law for making decisions whilst carrying out
their duties in law courts.

Therefore the advice you were given was correct and you should return to the courts
to argue the points you raise.

I have enclosed for you information a Fact Sheet entitled "Appealing against the

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED


NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Local Resolution process." This document explains how you may appeal to the
Humberside Police Appeal Body in respect of the outcome of the Local Resolution
process.

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 IPee, does not justify criminal or misconduct proceedings and does not arise
from the same incident as a complaint where the IPee 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 Humberside
Police Appeal Body before the end of the 29th day. The 29th day is 11 February
2016. 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.

Your sincerely

AUanHARVEV
Inspector 5521

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED


From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: <PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 25 January 2016 15:11
Attach: Appeal_form_-_LR.pdf; Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
Subject: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find appeal against against the outcome of local resolution and supporting document.

Yours sincerely

.
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………………………………………

…………………Postcode…DN32 ………..

Daytime telephone number Evening telephone number

None………………………….. None……………………

Email address: … @googlemail.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………………………………………….

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.

I don’t 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:
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:
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.

4 RESTRICTED - POLICY
RESTRICTED - POLICY

From:
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 Inspector’s 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.

5 RESTRICTED - POLICY
RESTRICTED - POLICY

From: "Harvey, Allan 5521"


To:
Sent: December 30, 2015
Subject: FW: Complaint CO/461/15

Mr ,

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:
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.

6 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.

7 RESTRICTED - POLICY
RESTRICTED - POLICY

The suitability test for local resolution

Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (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 complaint’s 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.

8 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 judge’s 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 judge’s 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 NELC’s 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
_______________________________________________
Signature of the person making this appeal: Date:

…………………................................... .…… 25 /01 / 2016

9 RESTRICTED - POLICY
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: <NorthCasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 25 January 2016 23:20
Attach: Appeal_form_-_LR.pdf
Subject: Appealing against the Local Resolution process

Dear Sir/Madam

I have submitted the attached form to Humberside police (Appealing against the Local Resolution
process), but discovered since doing so that an IPCC form exists for the purposes of "Appealing
against the Local Resolution process". It seems the IPCC form would have been more appropriate but
that form is not available on the Humberside police website.

It is clear from the representations on the attached that after researching the appeal process, I
consider the local resolution was the wrong process and an investigation should have been carried
out. It is also clear from the representations that I had no confidence in Humberside police dealing with
the matter and wanted another force to do so.

I would appreciate any guidance, for example would it be possible that the IPCC now deal with my
concerns or if the form I mentioned (Appealing against the Local Resolution process) requires
completing and to who would it be sent?

Yours sincerely

.
RESTRICTED

HUMBERSIDE POLICE
APPEAL BODY
Police Headquarters
Priory Road
Hull HU55SF
Tel NO: 01482 578301
Fax No: 01482 305004
Switchboard: 101
j-:)rot'3ctingCommunities, Targeting Criminals, Making a Difference

This matter is being dealt with by:

Abigail Combes

abigail.combes@humberside.pnn.police.uk

Complaint ref: CO/00461/15 26 January 2016

Dear Mr '----_

Thank you for your correspondence relating to an appeal that you have made
regarding the local resolution outcome of your complaint, reference CO/00461/15.

This letter is to formally acknowledge receipt of your appeal, received on 25 January


2016.

You will be contacted again in due course.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me on the above telephone
number.

Yours sincerely

Judi HEATON
Chief Superintendent

RESTRICTED
From: "!NorthCasework" <NorthCasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
To: “’ ’” < @gmail.com>
Sent: 26 January 2016 11:02
Attach: Frequently Asked Questions - Non-RAB.pdf
Subject: RE: Appealing against the Local Resolution process

Good morning Mr ,

Many thanks for contacting the IPCC.


I can see from previous emails between yourself and Humberside Police, that you have
copied the IPCC into, that the force are the relevant appeal body for your appeal.
It is for the force, not the IPCC, to decide which organisation should deal with your appeal.
In order to decide whether your appeal should be handled by the chief officer of the police
force or the IPCC, the police force looks at the nature of the complaint(s) that have been
made and applies a legal test [1].
The law [2] explains that if an appeal is made to the IPCC and the relevant appeal body is
the chief officer, the IPCC must forward the appeal to the appropriate authority to consider.
The IPCC must also tell the person who made the appeal that it has done this.
I have attached an information sheet about the appeal process.

Yours sincerely

Megan Morris
Casework Administrator
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Tel: (+44) 0161 246 8502
Email: northcasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
www.ipcc.gov.uk
IPCC Statutory Guidance on the handling of police complaints

[1]
Regulation 30 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 and Regulation 91 of
the Independent Police Complaints Commission (Complaints and Misconduct) (Contractors)
Regulations 2015.
[2]
Paragraph 31(1) Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "!NorthCasework" <NorthCasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 26 January 2016 13:06
Attach: Appealing_against_the_Local_Resolution_forms.pdf; appeal_about_local_resolution_form.pdf
Subject: Re: Appealing against the Local Resolution process

Dear Ms Morris

Thank you for your reply which is helpful.

I realise I could have been clearer regarding the two different appeal forms I was querying. I notice I
mistakenly referred to both of them as the same, i.e., "Appealing against the Local Resolution process".

The other form which I submitted (and attached yesterday) was the equivalent of the IPCC form "Appealing
against the outcome of local resolution".

I would appreciate knowing if it's appropriate that I also complete the form to appeal against the Local
Resolution process as it is evident to me that the Local Resolution was not the correct process elected by
Humberside police.

I have attached both forms which I'm querying for identification and your reference.

I would also like to know if the IPCC gets involved when the force makes errors such as these. I ask because
it did when Humberside police previously recorded complaints into Conduct as Direction and Control
matters.

Your sincerely

.
From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 27 January 2016 12:13
Subject: IPCC Ref: 2015/058542
Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We
acknowledge receipt of your email dated 26 January 2016 regarding the Local Resolution process
and the appeal process.

It may be useful to give you some background to the legislation changes that were implemented in
November 2012. Prior to November 2012 the complaints process was covered by the Police Reform
Act 2002 (PRA). A new act, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSRA), was
passed by Parliament in 2011 and implemented in November 2012. As part of the process Police
and Crime Commissioners were elected throughout the country.

Changes were made to the Local Resolution (LR) Process. Under the old legislation (PRA) the
complainant had to agree to the LR process but there was no right of appeal as to the outcome.
There was a right of appeal against the process for cases where the agreed process had not been
followed. Under the PRSRA the police can choose to use the LR process without the agreement of
the complainant. There is now a right of appeal against the outcome but no appeal right against the
process. There would only be a right of appeal against the LR process if the complaint were made
prior to the 22 November 2012.

LR can be used by police forces to resolve a complaint if the conditions below are met. (the text
below is an extract from the IPCC Statutory Guidance which can be accessed via our web site at
www.ipcc.gov.uk)

A complaint must meet both of the following conditions to be suitable for local resolution:
* the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct that is being complained about (even if it
were proved) would not justify bringing criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the person
whose conduct is complained about; and
* the appropriate authority is satisfied that the conduct complained about (even if it were proved)
would not involve the infringement of a person's rights under Article 2 or 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.

As such you should use the form "appeal against the outcome of local resolution".

If you believe that the force has made an error and you believe that your complaint did not satisfy
the points above then your first challenge should be to the police. You should state your reasons
why the LR process should not have been used and include your reasons with the appeal. It is then
up to the appeal assessor to review the decision. The IPCC cannot change the decison that has been
made.

The IPCC can sometimes contact the force if it can be clearly shown that the police force
(appropriate authority) has failed to reach a correct decision based on the IPCC Statutory Guidance.
This could result in the force changing its decision. The IPCC cannot unilaterally make the force
change its decision.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards

John Howarth
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 27 January 2016 16:42
Attach: CO.150461.LR letter. .130115.pdf
Subject: Re: IPCC Ref: 2015/058542

Dear Mr Howarth

Thank you for your reply which confirms that by stating my reasons why the LR process should not
have been used in my appeal, the action I've taken is correct.

I don't know whether you have read my appeal; it was attached in an earlier email. My
representations regarding why I considered the LR should not have been used are below. I have also
attached Humberside Police's outcome of the LR process to put the below into context .

Your sincerely

/Quote/

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) [North East Lincolnshire Council] 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.

The suitability test for local resolution

Independent Police Complaints Commission's (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 complaint's 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."
Do you feel the outcome was a proper outcome?

The outcome was wholly inappropriate as the investigating officer based his response solely with
regard to the court case being that the judge's determination was to grant a liability order. In doing
so, the fraudulent application for the liability order made by [North East Lincolnshire Council] -
which is a criminal allegation in isolation from the judge's 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 [North East Lincolnshire
Council]'s 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.

/End Quote/
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 27 January 2016 22:40
Attach: CO.150461.LR letter. .130115.pdf; Appeal_form_-_LR.pdf
Subject: Corruption within Humberside police force

Dear Sir/Madam

I have copied in a number of emails to the Humberside P&CC regarding my concerns about the force's
handling of complaints/crime reporting and fabricated evidence.

The two main issues are:

1. suspicion that a police officer incited witnesses to commit perjury in order to convict me of charges I'm
innocent of.

2. crime being fobbing off by the force as civil in order not to investigate thus protecting North East
Lincolnshire Council from perjury charges.

I will deal with the second issue only in this correspondence as it has not been decided whether the first is to
be appealed to the Crown court

I have hard evidence, detailed extensively in a statement to the police, that North East Lincolnshire Council
committed perjury by making a false statement in order to defraud me through court costs claimed in council
tax proceedings. The judge, in assistance, turned a blind eye to that breach of legal procedure.

I have reported the crime and been told wrongly by the force that it is a civil matter. I'm now being put to the
trouble of going through the complaint and appeal charade which will no doubt end in everyone's time being
wasted and the council evading justice.

As I have stated in a previous correspondence, 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 eventually achieve its vindictive aim that
could involve a custodial sentence or bankruptcy.

I have attached the Police outcome to the local resolution process. I stated my reasons why it was not the
appropriate process before it was carried out and have set this out again in the appeal (also attached).

The IPCC have needed to get involved previously regarding the way complaints are handled by Humberside
police and it seems they might have to again.

It should not be necessary for the public who pay for the police service to have to jump through these hoops.
If a crime is reported it should be investigated or at least considered properly for investigation. 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 protecting the local authority from justice.

I would like this matter looked into and hopefully some solution found to the concerns raised.

Yours sincerely

.
From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
To: “’ ’” < @gmail.com>
Sent: 28 January 2016 10:42
Subject: IPCC Ref: 2015/058542

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We
acknowledge your email dated 27 January 2015.

As stated in your decision letter from Humberside Police your appeal needs to be submitted to the
appeal body at the force. As the IPCC is not the relevant appeal body we are unable to consider
your appeal. For this reasons I have passed the information you have provided to the force who will
contact you regarding your appeal in due course.

Kind regards

Claire Parker
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: "SPOC PCC" <PCC@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 29 January 2016 15:24
Subject: RE: Corruption within Humberside police force

Dear Mr , thank you for your email to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside, Matthew
Grove. I acknowledge and respond on his behalf.

Complaints against the police must be handled in accordance with the relevant legislation. In this instance
Humberside Police were the appropriate authority to consider your complaint and the Humberside Police
Appeals Body is the correct body to consider your appeal. The Commissioner is not able to act as an
additional appeal mechanism.

I have contacted Humberside Police’s Professional Standards Branch who have confirmed that they have
received your appeal. I trust that you will hear from them shortly.

Although the Commissioner is unable to become involved in the matters that you have raised, please be
assured that he has been briefed on the emails that you have sent.

Yours faithfully

Louise Johnson
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "SPOC PCC" <PCC@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 31 January 2016 21:34
Subject: Re: Corruption within Humberside police force

Dear Ms Johnson

Thank you for your reply. I realise I could have been clearer regarding my correspondence and why I had
attached the Police's outcome letter and my appeal.

I realise that the matters I've become embroiled in are governed by statutory procedures and for that
reason the Commissioner is unable to get involved. However, the existence of the statutory complaints
process should not be seen by the force as an excuse for unaccountability, even though that is in effect what
the statutory process enables.

It can not have been parliament's intention when legislating the relevant Act, that all the concerns of the
public should be opposed as a matter of course merely on account of there being a complaint and series of
appeal processes.

There comes a point when an outside body should consider it appropriate to intervene (not in the
appeal process but the abuse of it). My appeal set out in some detail how the system is being abused and
therefore why it requires scrutiny. The appeal was attached to my 27 January 2016 email to highlight the
failings, not in the hope that it would be dealt with as an alternative or additional appeal.

Yours sincerely

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 01 February 2016 20:25
Subject: Re: IPCC Ref: 2015/058542

Dear Ms Parker

Thank you for your reply. I realise I could have been clearer regarding my correspondence and why I had
attached the Police's outcome letter, and in an earlier email, my appeal.

I realise that the matters I've become embroiled in are governed by statutory procedures and for that
reason the IPCC is unable to get involved. However, the existence of the statutory complaints process
should not be seen by the force as an excuse for unaccountability, even though that is in effect what the
statutory process enables.

It can not have been parliament's intention when legislating the relevant Act, that all the concerns of the
public should be opposed as a matter of course merely on account of there being a complaint and series of
appeal processes.

There comes a point when an outside body should consider it appropriate to intervene (not in the
appeal process but the abuse of it). My appeal set out in some detail how the system is being abused and
therefore why it requires scrutiny. The appeal was attached to my 21 January 2016 email to highlight the
failings, not in the hope that it would be dealt with by the IPCC.

Yours sincerely

.
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "Walmsley, Tony 8637" <Tony.Walmsley@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Cc: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>;
<PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 09 February 2016 10:44
Attach: Section 1 Magistrates court complaint - draft.pdf
Subject: Fw: Complaint against Police - CO 432/15

Dear Mr Walmsley

Do you have an update.

Yours sincerely

P.S. The attached is the draft of an information I intend to lay before the magistrates' court in order to start a
prosecution in connection with matters raised in complaint CO/461/15. Please forward it to the appropriate
person for comment.
GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES xx February 2016
MAGISTRATES’ COURT (Code 1940)

STARTING A PROSECUTION IN A MAGISTRATES’ COURT


(Magistrates’ Courts Act, s 1)

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Failure under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015 to exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the detriment of another person

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

On 11 November 2015, an officer serving with Humberside Police, Gillian Morley, 9614
failed in exercising police powers by responding to a reported offence of perjury to defraud,
that the matter did not concern the Police as it was civil.

STATEMENT OF INFORMANT

1. On 8 November 2015 the following report was submitted to Humberside Police via its
website facility for reporting non-emergency crimes:

“North East Lincolnshire Council produced a false witness statement (thereby


committing perjury) with regards a council tax liability hearing at Grimsby
Magistrates' Court. The District Judge (Daniel Curtis) was aware that the
evidence surrounded a false and corrupt statement, but nevertheless granted the
council a liability order to enforce a fraudulent sum which presently stands at
£120.00. This sum is likely to increase if the council appoints its criminal firm of
bailiffs, Rossendales. My allegations are that the council has committed perjury
with the intent to fraudulently obtain money from me by the use of Grimsby
Magistrates court and that Judge Daniel Curtis has perverted the course of justice
by being complicit to that crime.”
2. On 11 November 2015, Humberside Police responded by wrongly stating that the
reported crime (one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil
proceedings), was a civil matter, thereby improperly exercising police powers.

“With regards to your report that was submitted to Humberside Police on


08/11/2015.....please be advised that this is not a Police matter and is civil which
I suggest you seek further advice from a solicitor/legal advisor.”

3. The crime report followed proceedings instituted by North East Lincolnshire council
(NELC) to enforce council tax liability at Grimsby Magistrates' Court. The original
hearing 2 October 2015 identified issues and so the matter adjourned to 30 October.

4. NELC diverted payment intended to reduce the indebtedness of the current year’s
liability to a sum which was outstanding from the 2012/13 tax year thus engineering
default. The outstanding sum was disputed court costs which are under appeal to the High
Court. NELC had suspended the sum pending the court's decision so there was no
justification for engineering default by allocating payment to that sum as the case has yet
to be determined. The appeal has never withdrawn and consequently the costs still
disputed.

5. On 16 October, NELC served court papers by electronic transfer on the Defendant and
the Magistrates court in respect of the 30 October court hearing. The Witness Statement’s
content caused the Defendant to suspect a deliberate intent to deceive the court. That
matter was specifically documented in the Defendant’s representations dated 29 October
where it was also contended the statement made by NELC that it had no further reason to
believe that the costs were being disputed.

6. NELC had supported its decision to allocate payment to the disputed costs based upon its
claim that it believed the High Court appeal had been withdrawn therefore the suspension
to collect the costs lifted. It is inconceivable that NELC honestly believed this which is
backed up by the exhibits supporting its Witness statement. The Defendant’s current
council tax bill (exhibit 1) itemised the sum as a separate balance from the current
liability and describes it as a sum ‘subject to court proceedings’. NELC had
simultaneously submitted an item of evidence to the court claiming it had no reason to
believe that the costs were still being disputed and another implying that they were
suspended until the outcome of the proceedings. The Council Tax bill expressed this in
the following terms:
“Memorandum Note
Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance
As at 27-FEB-2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is 60.00
60.00 of the total is subject to court proceedings”

7. On serving the court papers by electronic transfer, NELC had only been able to
successfully transfer to the Defendant, nine of the fourteen files which made up the
complete set of documents. It was apparent from the context of the 'Witness Statement'
which was successfully transferred that the missing content could be sourced elsewhere,
and NELC therefore informed.

8. A missing exhibit was identified in the Witness Statement to be a letter on which NELC
relied to justify having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed
[because the Defendant had withdrawn the] application for the Judicial review of the
costs'. It was verified by email records that a copy, which was a letter sent to the
Administrative Court Office dated 20th November 2013 had been sent to NELC and
acknowledged by way of a 'read receipt' on 22 November 2013.

9. There was no obvious disadvantage to not having received this exhibit. The letter,
however did not give any cause to lead NELC to believe that the High Court appeal (case
stated) challenging the summons costs had been withdrawn. The letter was in response to
the Administrative Court's recommendation to withdraw the judicial review claim as the
process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case and deemed there no longer
a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was underway. The
judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application to state a case for
an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the Magistrates' court
to conform. The judicial review claim therefore was for a mandatory order, not a 'review
of the costs' and so the case stated appeal challenging the summons costs had never been
withdrawn.

10. It is clear from the context of that letter alone that it was only the judicial review claim
for a mandatory order that was withdrawn and that the High Court appeal challenging the
summons costs was still being pursued.

11. NELC had acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read
receipts' returned on 15 January, 14 February and 23 April 2014 in respect of letters dated
10 January, 13 February and 22 April 2014. Those letters, which were copies of
correspondence sent to the Justices' Clerk contained hard evidence that the high court
appeal was still being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for mandatory
order was withdrawn.

12. Acknowledgement of letters being read, regarding the 10 January and 14 February emails
concerned letters sent to the Justices’ Clerk, querying the failure to deliver the final
signed case stated. The email regarding the 22 April concerned a letter sent to the
Justices’ Clerk, requesting a certificate to state that the application had been refused.

13. The missing court papers were requested again on 2 November 2015 (after the court
hearing) in readiness for escalating the matter. NELC was successful in transferring them,
and on viewing the exhibit concerning the Administrative Court it was obvious that
contrary to the initial view, not having all the papers was a disadvantage.

14. The exhibit, provided additional evidence that NELC had wilfully made a statement
material in the proceeding, which was known not to be true. The letters were not copies
of the original; it can be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the contents were
obtained from the same source that recorded publicly everything relevant to the matter.
The source was a public help forum dealing with council tax issues, the same forum
which NELC had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits.

15. The letters contained in the exhibit (revealed 2 November) had been redacted and
matched the entries that were posted on the public forum. The forum is the only place
from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the
letters which NELC submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.

16. NELC had not sought the original letters and had presumably as a short cut referred to the
website where all correspondence connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where
conveniently in one place. It is likely that if NELC had made use of the forum to produce
its Witness Statement, it would have been informed from the regular updates posted that
the case stated appeal was still very much being pursued. Whether the forum was
regularly consulted by NELC would not be the deciding factor in determining that it
knowingly made a false statement; it would however reinforce the allegations. The crux
of the matter is that the post from which the content was sourced was accompanied with
some commentary (below) which reinforced the matter in itself:
“Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates’ Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.”

17. NELC had made a statement (material in the proceedings) that was known to be false
with the intention of misleading the court to justify misallocating payment to a disputed
sum thereby engineering default for the current year enabling a further court application
for the purposes of fraudulently attaching a claim of costs.

18. It is a matter of public importance that a summons be issued directed to the police officer
to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information for an offence of
improperly treating perjury as a civil matter.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The information of: Mr , of Grimsby

I believe the statement contained in this information is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief

Dated this day of February 2016

Signed:
From: "Walmsley, Tony 8637" <Tony.Walmsley@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
To: “ ”< @gmail.com>
Sent: 16 February 2016 09:19
Subject: RE: Complaint against Police - CO 432/15

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

Mr

As far as I am aware there is no such policy in place. With regard to the emails you send to me I forward
them on to Inspector Parsons who is dealing with your complaint – as I have this one – it is not for me to
respond to you as I do not know how his investigation is progressing. In relation to the private prosecution
you are considering taking out I have forwarded that information to our Legal Services Unit for their
information. I do not know when or if they will choose to respond.

Whilst I am well aware of the fact that these matter require resolving at the earliest opportunity please
bear in mind that Inspector Parsons is an operational Inspector and has limited opportunities to respond to
your emails and all those other emails he is in receipt of.

I am not in a position to help you any further at this time regarding these matters other than forwarding
your emails on to who I consider they are relevant to.

Regards

Tony Walmsley

Tony Walmsley 8637


Caseworker
Professional Standards Branch
Humberside Police HQ
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

Tel. 01482 578133


From: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 23 February 2016 19:12
Subject: IPCC Reference 2015/058542

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We
acknowledge receipt of your emails, partially copied, dated 1,13,15 February 2016, the contents of
which have been filed and noted on the above reference, please quote this in any future
correspondence. We sincerely apologise for the delay in response, this is due to high work volumes
at present.

I do note your concerns however I am unable to expand on the advice previously supplied as we
have no legal jurisidiction to become involved in a complaint where we are not the relevant appeal
body for this. I would refer you back to the email of my colleague, John Howarth dated 27 January
2016, as this details the legislative changes within the complaints system and steps to take if you
believe the force have made an error in the handling of your complaint.

Yours sincerely

Hannah Reek
Customer Contact Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 01 March 2016 15:32
Subject: Re: IPCC Reference 2015/058542

Dear Ms Reek

I have to stress that my concerns go far beyond the IPCC's jurisdiction with regards to getting involved in a
particular complaint. There is a systematic abuse of the complaints and appeal process that needs to be
escalated for the attention at the highest level.

There must be some action which can be taken by the IPCC or other body which can make an impact on
reforming the dysfunctional process. I have had too many years of my life taken over with these issues and I
think it's time was taken out of my hands.

I would like some reassurance that there is something being done about it or at least some plans.

Yours sincerely

.
Page 1 of 5

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "Jones, Debbie" <debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 03 March 2016 12:44
Subject: Re: Hearing 10:00 am 15 December 2015 (Court Room 2)

Dear Mr Townell

I have looked into the matter regarding an attachment in a previous email containing a virus and found it
unlikely to be the case. As a preliminary step, I have checked out an email I sent to your email address (Fri,
Jan 29, 2016 at 2:04 PM) with the following two attachments:

NELC costs - 14 Jan 15.pdf

Summons-Cost-Calculation-of-2014-15-for-2015-16.xlsx

Regarding my email program and in connection with the specific email, the following message is
recorded "This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software"; in an acknowledgement
message from yourself, the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service displays the following:

Your message was read on 29 January 2016 14:05:07 UTC.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus
scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.

In order to investigate this matter further, it would be helpful if you could identify the document which contained
the virus.

In the meantime I will provide the contents of the information I lodged on 1 March 2016 in accordance with s 1
of the Magistrates' courts Act 1980.

Your sincerely

GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES xx February 2016


MAGISTRATES’ COURT (Code 1940)

STARTING A PROSECUTION IN A MAGISTRATES’ COURT


(Magistrates’ Courts Act, s 1)

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Failure under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to
exercise a power for the purpose of achieving the detriment of another person

21/07/2016
Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
18 April 2016

Dear Mr ,

As promised in my email sent to you last week I am writing to update you on your
application to start a prosecution in a Magistrates’ Court.

The decision has been made to list your application before a professional magistrate.
In accordance with section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 the magistrate will
apply his mind to the information and go through the judicial exercise of deciding
whether or not a summons ought to be issued.

You should therefore attend in person at Grimsby Magistrates’ court on Tuesday, 26th
April 2016, at 9.30 in the morning in order to lay your information.

You should bring with you any evidence in your possession that an offence has been
committed under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

You will of course have the opportunity to address the magistrate personally and
answer any questions he may have.

On arrival at court please give your name to an usher or member of security staff who
will direct you to the appropriate court room.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "HU-Grimsbymclist" <hu-grimsbymclist@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 21 April 2016 17:20
Subject: Re: Mr

Dear Mr Townell

Thank you for your letter concerning my application to start a prosecution.

Regarding the hearing and the date set to lay the information, my understanding was that an
information was laid as soon as it is received in the clerk's office, which was in effect 8 March
2016. In any event, it is likely, given the absence of a level playing field that as a member of the
public, up against a body having access to public money for legal representation, the chances of a
successful outcome would be zero, no matter how concrete the evidence.

I have taken the step of laying an information as a last resort, since being met with a lack of will on
the part of public bodies funded by the taxpayer to deal with matters like this on their behalf. It has
been an essential move to get this serious matter of fraud and corruption out in the open and
hopefully taken seriously. However, the time, stress and expense in doing this has gone far beyond
what a member of the public should reasonably be expected to commit in subsidising the services
that our taxes fund.

Of course, to carry on any further with this by myself would be completely insane as the potential
financial loss would be far beyond my means and would in all probability result in the loss of my
home, and it is therefore suggested alternatively that all evidence I hold is made available and the
case referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. This looks to be a realistic proposal because, for
example, a justices' clerk may refer a private prosecution to the CPS under s.7(4) of the Prosecution
of Offences Act 1985.

On another point related to this matter it may be relevant to inform you that I have contacted North
East Lincolnshire Council today after looking into how matters of fraud should be dealt with and it
appears that this matter has not been dealt with in accordance with its own policies. Of course it is
too early in the day to know whether the council will act on my instructions to carry out an
investigation into fraud and corruption in accordance with it's whistleblowing policy, but this has to
be a potential remedy.

Yours sincerely

.
Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
22 April 2016

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for latest email.

As section 1 (1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 states, on an information being laid,
a justice of the peace may issue a summons directing the person suspected of having
committed an offence to appear before a magistrates’ court.

In the case of an information being laid by a private individual it is normal for that
individual to appear before a justice in person to put forward his argument for why a
summons should be issued.

If after hearing from you and considering your application the justice feels that a
summons should not be issued then he will give you his reasons for that decision.

If the justice decides to issue a summons then a hearing date will be set for the person
named in the summons to attend court.

If you fail to attend court on Tuesday the magistrate may decide in your absence that a
summons should not be issued and the matter will go no further.

I should be obliged if you would let me know if you will be attending on Tuesday.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: "Jones, Debbie" <debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 25 April 2016 08:35
Subject: Re: Mr Letter 22 April 2016.doc

Dear Mr Townell

Your email (22 April) for some reason went into my spam folder and wasn't seen until too late to reply on
Friday.

I have however over the weekend been putting together a statement of evidence and collated relevant items
of correspondence/statements. In light of this evidence, I don't see how if it is considered that any other
conclusion could be arrived at than my allegations are true.

I hope to have all this complete late this morning and serve the documents by email.

I will not be attending tomorrow but I firmly believe the evidence speaks for itself

Yours sincerely

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "Jones, Debbie" <debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 25 April 2016 13:16
Attach: Exhibit 6.pdf; Statement of evidence.pdf; Exhibit 1.pdf; Exhibit 2.pdf; Exhibit 3.pdf; Exhibit 4.pdf;
Exhibit 5.pdf
Subject: Re: Mr Letter 22 April 2016.doc

Dear Mr Townell

There are 22 documents in total that require transferring regarding the information laid on 8 March 2016.

In order to avoid any technical problems I will attach them in a number of emails.

Files are as follows:

Exhibit 1 to 21 (pdf)

Statement of evidence.pdf

Yours sincerely

.
GRIMSBY AND CLEETHORPES Application to start a prosecution
(s1 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)
MAGISTRATES’ COURT
(Code 1940) Listed: 26 April 2016

Prosecution
v

Humberside Police
Defendant

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF EXHIBITS

No DATE DESCRIPTION FILE

1 8 March 2016 Magistrates’ Courts Act, s 1 (Information) Exhibit 1

2 12 Nov 2015 Email from Humb Police Exhibit 2

3 12 Nov 2015 Email to Humb Police Exhibit 3

5 13 Nov 2015 Email from Humb Police Exhibit 4

5 2 Dec 2015 Evidence supporting allegations Exhibit 5

6 8 Dec 2015 Humb Police confirming recording of complaint Exhibit 6

7 13 Jan 2016 Humb Police outcome of complaint Exhibit 7

8 25 Jan 2016 Appeal against outcome of complaint Exhibit 8


9 19 July 2013 Costs suspended until outcome of proceedings Exhibit 9

10 October 2015 Council’s Witness Statement Exhibit 10

11 Nov 2013 Screen shots of internet forum posts Exhibit 11

12 October 2015 Council’s Exhibit (NELC12) Exhibit 12

13 20 Nov 2013 Original letter to Administrative Court Exhibit 13

14 25 Nov 2013 Original letter from Administrative Court Exhibit 14

15 15 Jan 2014 Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 15

16 14 Feb 2014 Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 16

17 23 April 2014 Email “Read Receipt” from Council Exhibit 17

18 10 Jan 2014 Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (query delivery of case) Exhibit 18

19 13 Feb 2014 Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (query delivery of case) Exhibit 19

20 22 April 2014 Letter to the Justices’ Clerk (requesting certificate) Exhibit 20

21 – S 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Exhibit 21

1. This statement and the above listed provides evidence to support the information laid on
8.3.16 [Exhibit 1].

2. On 12.11.15, Humberside Police (‘HP’) responded by stating that a reported crime (one
punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or civil proceedings), was a civil
matter [Exhibit 2].

3. An email expressing dissatisfaction with HP’s response was sent 12.11.15 stating that a
complaint would be submitted about whoever within the force made the decision. A
request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable
so dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external scrutiny rather
than the force investigating itself. [Exhibit 3].
4. HP made contact on 13.11.15, advising that all evidence should be collated to support
the allegations [Exhibit 4]. HP confirmed in a letter dated 23.11.15 that the Professional
Standards Branch was in receipt of the complaint. The advice was acted on regarding
the evidence and a statement produce dated 2.12.15 [Exhibit 5]. A number of
supporting documents were indexed but withheld awaiting assurance that they would be
considered but the documents were never asked for.

5. A letter dated 8.12.15 from HP confirmed that the matter had been formally recorded
(CO 461/15) and enclose a copy of the complainant report [Exhibit 6]. The letter
(outcome) in relation to the complaint was sent on 13.1.16 [Exhibit 7] stating that
unless a request comes from the court, HP do not investigate allegations of perjury and
was a matter to be argued with the court.

6. On 15.1.16 Grimsby Magistrates’ court was forwarded HP’s outcome letter and asked if
it would confirm that the North East Lincolnshire Council (the ‘Council’) had in fact
produced a false witness statement and inform HP (the court had been forwarded the
statement [Exhibit 5] on 11.12.15). The court replied in this matter on 26.1.16 stating
that it would not be taking any action regarding the allegations of perjury.

7. An appeal against the outcome of local resolution was submitted on 25.1.16 [Exhibit 8]
but to date there has been no update in relation to any progress made.

Exhibits supporting false statement

8. In summary, the council applied to the Magistrates' court to obtain a Council Tax
liability order relating to the 2015/16 tax year. Payments were made in sufficient
amount to meet the legal obligation to pay the sums set out on the demand notice and so
the account was never in arrears.

9. The Council engineered a 'non-payment' scenario, by allocating monies to a disputed


sum which related to a previous year's account that was under appeal to the High Court.
That sum was suspended [Exhibit 9] pending the court's decision which has yet to be
concluded. The Council allocate monies to the wrong account attributing that decision
to believing that the sum was no longer disputed because the appeal had been withdrawn
(paras 69 & 73 of the Council’s Witness Statement submitted for Council Tax liability
hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 10]).
10. Evidence held supports that this claim was untrue, not on account of the appeal never
being withdrawn (though it hasn't), but specifically because it is beyond all reasonable
doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn. The Council posted monies to
the suspended account on the premise that it believed the appeal had been withdrawn
and therefore did so fraudulently.

11. It is beyond reasonable doubt that two internet forum posts [Exhibit 11] were the source
of one of the Council’s exhibits (NELC12) referred to in its Witness Statement for
Council Tax liability hearing 30.10.15 [Exhibit 12]. These were two letters on which
the Council sought to rely in justifying having ‘no further reason to believe that the
costs were being disputed’ because the ‘application for the Judicial review of the costs'
had been withdrawn.

12. The original letters one dated 20.11.13 [Exhibit 13] was in response to the
Administrative Court's recommendation to withdraw the judicial review claim as the
process had prompted the Magistrates to produce a draft case and deemed there no
longer a need for further action on their part as the process of stating a case was
underway.

Note: The judicial review claim, which was a separate matter from the application to
state a case for an appeal challenging the costs, was merely the vehicle used to get the
Magistrates' court to comply with the procedure. The judicial review claim therefore
was for a mandatory order, not a 'review of the costs' and so the case stated appeal
challenging the summons costs had not been withdrawn.

The other letter dated 25.11.13 [Exhibit 14] was the Administrative Court's response to
confirm that the letter to withdraw had been accepted and the Court file closed.

13. The letters contained in the Council’s submission had been redacted and matched the
entries that were posted on the public forum. The forum is the only place from which
those letters could be sourced in that form. The characteristics (redaction, formatting
etc.) of the letters which the Council submitted to the court were identical to the forum
posts [Exhibit 10].

14. The Council had for some reason not sought the original letters and made use of the
website where every correspondence connected with the matter (albeit redacted) could
be conveniently accessed. It is likely that if the Council had made use of the forum to
produce its submission, it would have been informed from the regular updates posted
that the case stated appeal was still being pursued. Even if the forum was not regularly
viewed it was enough that it did once to source content to be certain that it knowingly
made a false statement. The crux of the matter is that one of the posts from which the
content was sourced [Exhibit 11] (though omitted) had the following commentary
accompanying it which reinforced the matter in itself:

“Back almost to square one.

Although the judicial review claim for mandatory order was not entirely
successful in mandating the Magistrates' Court to state the case (other than the
draft), it would never have been known there was a possibility to negotiate the
terms of a recognizance at the hearing. It took this process to prompt a response
from the Justices at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

The next move then will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to
agree terms of a recognizance.”

Receipt of correspondence acknowledged after judicial review claim withdrawn

15. The Council had acknowledged receiving letters (email attachments) by way of 'read
receipts' returned on 15 January [Exhibit 15], 14 February [Exhibit 16] and 23 April
2014 [Exhibit 17] in respect of letters dated 10 January [Exhibit 18], 13 February
[Exhibit 19] and 22 April 2014 [Exhibit 20]. Those letters, which were copies of
correspondence sent to the Justices' Clerk concerned matters that left no doubt that the
high court appeal was still being pursued, and sent after the judicial review claim for
mandatory order was withdrawn.

16. The appropriation of monies was supported by the Council on the basis that it believed
the appeal had been withdrawn, and on that basis alone. The council officer had
therefore wilfully made a statement material in the proceeding, which he knew was
untrue. As a consequence the Council now has a court order enabling it to enforce a
fraudulently obtained sum, which is likely to accumulate because of additional costs
which will over time to be sufficient in amount so the council will claim justification in
taking measures such as bankruptcy, charging order or applying for a custodial sentence.
Improper exercise of police powers and privileges

17. HP’s decision not to act, especially in light of the indisputable evidence must amount to
improperly exercising police powers under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 26 of the
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 [Exhibit 21] as clearly the failure to exercise a
power is to the detriment of another person.

18. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this 25th day of April 2016

Signed:

Exhibits 1 – 21
Omitted
Request complete paper
Page 1 of 1

From: "Jones, Debbie" <debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>


To: “’ ’” < @gmail.com>
Sent: 25 April 2016 15:02
Subject: Mr Letter 25 April 2016.doc

Hi Mr

Please see letter below

Regards
Debbie

Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr N ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
25 April 2016

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for latest emails and for informing me that you will not be attending court tomorrow.

I will ensure that the magistrate is provided with all the documentation you have sent in today.

I will notify you of the outcome.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court

30/07/2016
Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
28 April 2016

Dear Mr ,

I write to inform you that your application to commence criminal proceedings was
considered by Deputy District Judge Hayles on Tuesday 26 April 2016.

Having considered all your documentation the Judge refused to issue a summons.

I have attached a copy of his reasons for your information.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Mr

Application by an individual to commence criminal proceedings by


issue of summons.

This is an application by to lay an information for the issue of a summons


alleging an offence under section 26. Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 against
Gillian Morley of the Humberside Police.

1). Mr has been invited to attend Grimsby Magistrates Court for an ex


parte private hearing and has declined the invitation.

2). I have read statements of evidence by Mr dated 2nd December 2015


th
and 25 April 2016, together with those exhibits which were sent to the Clerk to the
Justices.

3). I find that Mr is aggrieved at a decision of the Grimsby Magistrates


Court in October 2015 making or confirming a liability order in respect of allegedly
unpaid council tax. He complains that the order was achieved because a Local
Authority officer gave perjured evidence. He is aggrieved as well that the District
Judge (Magistrates Court) hearing and making the liability order was complicit in the
perjury and thus himself was guilty of perverting the course of justice.

4). I am told that no appeal has been lodged.

5). Mr invited the Police to investigate the alleged perjury. The Police
declined to. On 11th November 2015 Gillian Morley informed Mr that the
matter did not concern the police as it was a civil matter.

6). Mr complained that the decision of the Police not to investigate was an
improper exercise of a power in accordance with section 26 of Criminal Justice &
Courts Act 2015, and that that failure to investigate triggers his current application.

7). Mr has made a complaint to the Police. That has been rejected and Mr
is aggrieved by that.

8). I have referred myself to Stones Justices manual; and to R v West London
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Khan (1979) and in particular to the
explanation to the approach to issuing a summons by Lord Widgery C.J.

9). I have a discretion whether or not to issue a summons. I do not issue a summon
because the application is vexatious
(a) Mr seeks to proceed on an offence that is not designed for this
type of circumstance. Further the application overlooks the reasonable person
test in sections 26(4)(b) and 26 (5)(c).
(b) His grievance is really about the October 2015 order and the evidence of
the Local Authority.
(c) He has had the opportunity to appeal the October 2015 decision but he
has chosen not to.
(d) He appears to be using this application as a collateral attack to (b) above.

N P Hayles
Deputy District Judge (MC)
26/04/2016
From: “ ”< @gmail.com>
To: <PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Cc: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 03 May 2016 22:03
Attach: Appeal_form_-_LR.pdf; Perjury to Commit Fraud - 2 Dec 15.pdf
Subject: Fw: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15

Dear Sir/Madam

Is there any information/update regarding the progress of this matter?

Some information I have discovered on the Crown Prosecution Service's website states that the police do not
have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury, which is what Humberside police claims to be its
policy, see below:

"I understand that this matter has been heard in a court of law. The advice I have obtained is that the
issues you raise may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal hearings.

Humberside Police do not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the
court themselves."

Crown Prosecution Service's website

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/judicial_comments/#o

Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury

"Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured s/he can
recommend that there should be a police investigation.

The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for an investigation."

Also, the police force is making spurious statements because the matter is criminal and not something you can
appeal to another judge in civil proceedings.

I trust the above will be considered in the appeal.

Your sincerely

.
Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
06 May 2016

Dear Mr ,

I write in respect of your recent email to the Data Access & Compliance Unit under the
name fFaudwAtch UK.

The matter has been passed to me as this is not a Freedom of Information case.

There is no information to impart as you have already been sent the reasons for the
decision made by Deputy District Judge Hayles on 26 April 2016.

If you are aggrieved by the decision not to issue a summons you can apply for judicial
review of that decision.

You may wish to take independent legal advice before taking such a course of action.

I have sent you an attached guide which sets out the different stages in the procedure,
along with information on fees and costs.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
The Police and Crime Commissioner for
Humberside Grimsby
Pacific Exchange North East Lincolnshire
40 High Street
Hull
HU1 1PS

Dear Mr Hunter

Re: Negligence in Humberside Police’s handling of crime allegations

I wrote to Mr Grove with optimism in January 2013 believing that with Humberside Police
being held to account by an elected Commissioner, the public would have a more effective
means of seeking redress than when the Police Authority was responsible.

It was apparent soon enough that the elected Commissioner didn’t have the powers to do what
the public perhaps believe he could. Either that, or the route of least resistance was taken,
which in my case was to suggest considering civil redress as a remedy for concerns raised
about the Chief Constable failing to address the corruption in handling fraud allegations i.e.,
refusing to investigate and subsequently mishandling complaints and appeals.

It is illogical when you consider the force’s limited resources that at the same time an unpaid
taxpayer has supplied concrete evidence to prove a crime for that person to be fobbed-off and
lied to with appeals prolonging over several years with no substance to back up negative
outcomes when a decision has eventually been made. The fact that this is happening raises the
question of whether the force has its hands tied, to the point where an investigation into local
government is a no go area, i.e., the force operates on a discriminatory basis.

None of these issues have been resolved; rather further more serious matters have arisen since
where similarly there appears no end in sight, being again embroiled in continual dispute with
the force. The force is again failing to resolve the concerns with paperwork being diverted
through the same sham process where it is predicted that in a year or two the force will have
done nothing except cover for the authorities and to have added to the years of my time that
the police have already wasted.
The most serious matter concerns Humberside police stitching me up with fabricated evidence
(now having a criminal record and a £600+ fine to pay) for an offence I am innocent of. The
suspected motivation being that I had got on the wrong side of the police by highlighting
matters in which the force is complicit concerning substantial fraud. In relation to this there
has been no outcome and probably not even any steps taken to investigate the police officer
complained about for incitement of perjury over the 6 month period since the matter was
formally reported. Humberside police also refuses to record as a crime the reported incident,
i.e., that submitted about two witnesses lying in their witness statements.

Another matter arising relates to the force responding to a reported crime (perjury to defraud)
by stating that such a crime, one punishable as an offence whether occurring in criminal or
civil proceedings, was a civil matter. North East Lincolnshire Council obtained a liability
order for non-payment of council tax and evidence is held that it lied to the court in a witness
statement to do so and consequently costs awarded to the council were obtained fraudulently.

A request was made for the matter to be escalated for the attention of the Chief Constable in
order that the anticipated dissatisfaction of a subsequent decision would be subject to external
scrutiny rather than the force investigating itself. The force proceeded regardless and the
matter dealt with under the Local Resolution process with the outcome (13 January 2016)
stating that the issues may be appeal points that could be raised at any subsequent appeal
hearings and that the force did not investigate allegations of perjury unless a request to do so
comes from the court.

These were spurious statements because the matter is criminal and not something you can
appeal to another judge in civil proceedings. In any event, the Crown Prosecution Service's
website states that the police do not have to be instructed by the court to investigate perjury.

“Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury

Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial is perjured
s/he can recommend that there should be a police investigation.

The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no justification for
an investigation.”
The outcome of Local Resolution process has been appealed with the paperwork submitted 25
January 2016 but six months from the original complaint being made on 12 November 2015
there is still no outcome or any update.

When a member of the public is deemed to have committed an offence (even without or with
fabricated evidence) a criminal prosecution is it instituted. However, when it's a council
officer committing perjury to defraud a member of the public even when there is concrete
evidence, the force falls over itself to protect the council officer from the justice system.

My evidence goes far beyond what would be required to prove the perjury case against the
council, yet a blind eye is turned to that crime. On the other hand, the CPS gets away with
having successfully secured a prosecution against me on fabricated evidence that even an
untrained person would have spotted inconsistencies.

It is no revelation to declare that police officers having to investigate their colleagues fuels the
problem, but there is a systematic abuse of the complaints and appeal process that needs to be
escalated for the attention at the highest level. There must be some action which can be taken
which can make an impact on reforming the dysfunctional process. Though the process is
governed by statutory procedures and for that reason outside interference is restricted, the
existence of the statutory complaints process should not be seen by the force as an excuse for
unaccountability, even though that is in effect what the process enables.

It can not have been parliament's intention when legislating the relevant Act, that all the
concerns of the public should be opposed as a matter of course merely on account of there
being a complaint and series of appeal processes. There comes a point when an outside body
should consider it appropriate to intervene, if not the appeal process, at least the abuse of it.

It appears you have been elected on what could be interpreted to be an undertaking, in part, to
root out the corruption within Humberside Police. I would like therefore to see evidence of
that with an investigation into the (invisible) Chief Constable's failings who has apparently in
order to make life easy for herself, adopted the Ostrich approach rather than confronting
failings and providing the public who pay her salary the service they’ve paid for.

Yours sincerely

. .
PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

2845/3371/1/4/504/940163 Tel: 0844701 3980


Mr Fax: 0844 701 3982
Email: enquiries@rossendales.com
Grimsby Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address

Grimsby

Date: 11th May 2016

Rossendafes Ltd on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits
Service - C Tax - TCE Ref: 5501 Rossendales Ref: 28628956

All enquiries concerning this document MUST be made to Rossendales Ltd., not
North East Lincolnshire Council Revenues & Benefits Service

COUNCIL TAX NOTICE OF ISSUE OF LIABILITY ORDER


INFORMATION PRELIMINARY TO DISTRESS

Following an application made by North East Lincolnshire Council a liability order was issued against you on
30/10/2015 in respect of unpaid Council Tax of £211.00 (including costs).

The balance outstanding in respect of the order is £211.00.

You must pay this sum IN FUll immediately and direct to Rossendales Ltd., NOT THE COUNCIL.

To make immediate payment call our 24 hour automated


payment line 0845 078 1194 quoting 28628956

Please note that any other amounts you may owe to the Council that are not covered by this liability order
need to be paid as previously advised. Details on how to pay the amount shown above are explained on the
enclosed leaflet.

If you cannot pay in full or dispute the amount due then either write to us at the address above or telephone
us on 0844 701 3980 immediately.

If payment is not made in full within 14 days from the date of this notice, then distress may be levied upon
your possessions. This means that we can list and remove your belongings and sell them at public auction to
pay the amount which you owe.

If you want us to consider a payment arrangement you must complete the enclosed questionnaire in full,
including details of your offer, and send-it to us, NOT THE COUNCIL, within 7 days. If we accept your offer
we will write to you to confirm this within 7 days of receiving your offer. If your offer is unacceptable we will
visit to levy distress, and you will have to pay extra fees as shown on the enclosed schedule.

ROSSENDALES LTD

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165


Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
Page 1 of 1

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: <PSBAdmin@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
Cc: <pcc@humberside.pnn.police.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 16 May 2016 16:34
Attach: Rossendales 11 May 2016.pdf
Subject: Re: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to my 3rd May 2016 email, is there any information/update regarding the progress of this matter?

Additional information

I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to
enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter). The Council has this power only on account
of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended
for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being
disputed.

Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are
likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added
to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430 – the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.

If you refer to my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey on this matter, my prediction has the
makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraphs):

"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."

It is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option
available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not
currently own a car that option is out. The Council is unable to take monies from my income because I have
none whatsoever, only outgoings.

I see the only alternative available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the
court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had reported the matter as
a crime but the police would not investigate and so claim that Humberside police endorsed the council's
actions. This would of course be a distortion because there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
prospect of conviction against the Council which would have not been in doubt had the force investigated.

In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is
produced explaining that the reason why Humberside police did not investigate my allegations was not
because there was no realistic prospect of conviction, but because the force has only finite resources which
do not extend to investigating every crime or it had its hands tied by whatever restrictions are laid down by the
government.

Yours sincerely

30/07/2016
Page 1 of 1

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: "Jones, Debbie" <debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 16 May 2016 21:44
Attach: Rossendales 11 May 2016.pdf
Subject: Mr Letter 22 April 2016.doc

Dear Mr Townell

Additional information

I think you should be informed that North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales bailiffs to
enforce the alleged outstanding Council Tax (see attached letter). The Council has this power only on account
of being successful in hoodwinking the judge that it had been a legitimate approach to divert monies intended
for the current year's account to another sum which it had agreed in writing was suspended whilst being
disputed.

Although the schedule of fees referred to in the letter was not enclosed as stated, I believe those fees are
likely to amount to £310, comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added
to the unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430 – the sum which I will potentially be out of pocket.

In reference to an email I sent on 30 December 2015 to Inspector Allan Harvey regarding this matter, my
prediction has the makings of being very accurate (see quoted paragraphs):

"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."

It is not feasible that Rossendales will be successful in recovering any of this from me as the only option
available to them is to take control of a vehicle as it is not obligatory to let a bailiff into your home. As I do not
currently own a car that option is out. The Council is unable to take monies from my income because I have
none whatsoever, only outgoings.

I see the only alternative available, after the likely failure of Rossendales, will be for the Council to apply to the
court for committal and will predictably strengthen its case with the argument that I had reported the matter as
a crime but the police would not investigate and so claim that Humberside police endorsed the council's
actions. This would of course be a distortion because there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
prospect of conviction against the Council which would have not been in doubt had the force investigated.

The unwillingness of the police to investigate was attributed to the following in a letter dated 13 January 2016
which I forwarded to the court on 19 & 26 of January that stated "Humberside Police do not investigate
allegations of perjury unless a request to do so comes from the court themselves." On 26 January you
responded uncooperatively saying that "the court is not taking any action regarding your allegations of
perjury".

In anticipation of having to defend myself in court at a potential committal hearing I request that a letter is
produced explaining that the reason why Humberside police did not investigate my allegations was not
because there was no realistic prospect of conviction, but because the court was unwilling to cooperate by
requesting the Police investigate.

Yours sincerely

30/07/2016
Page 1 of 1

From: "Horton, Louise 8426" <Louise.Horton@humberside.pnn.police.uk>


To: ‘” ’”< @gmail.com>
Sent: 18 May 2016 14:44
Subject: RE: Appeal against outcome of local resolution - Ref: CO 461/15 [RESTRICTED - NO
DESCRIPTOR]

RESTRICTED - NO DESCRIPTOR

Good Afternoon

Thank you for the additional information provided in relation to CO/461/15 and your appeal.

As this is now an appeal the paperwork and your subsequent emails have been forwarded to the
Humberside Police Appeals Body who are now looking into your appeal.

I have also forwarded the below and attached information to them to assist them with the appeal

Many thanks

Louise Horton
PSB Admin
Humberside Police
Priory Road

30/07/2016
Julie Collins
Courts & Tribunal Manager
Humber & South Yorkshire Area

A Watts
Clerk to the Justices
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1HN
Mr ,
, ,
T 01472 320444
Grimsby
Minicom VII not available
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
www.justice.gov.uk

Our ref: GT
20 May 2016

Dear Mr ,

I write in response to your latest two emails to me, the first sent on 9 May 2016 and the
second on 16 May 2016.

With regard to your first email I have already informed you that the court is not
prepared to reopen your criminal case. That is because you deliberately chose not to
attend your trial.

Frankly I can only describe your comments in respect of dedicated and hard working
professionals within Her Majesty’s Courts’ Service as outrageous.

With regard to your second email, that relates simply to an issue of non payment of
council tax. Should that matter result ultimately in a court hearing you will be given the
opportunity to attend court for an inquiry into your financial circumstances. At such a
hearing the court will deal with that issue and that issue alone.

I am unable to help you any further.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Townell
Legal Team Manager
Grimsby Magistrates’ Court
Notice of Enforcement
This notice must be given by the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent's office.

Please read this notice - it is important

1441/4091/1/3/536/954663
Mr

Grimsby

Date notice issued 25th May 2016

Enforcement agent
28628956
reference number

About this notice You have been sent this notice of enforcement because you have not paid money that you owe.

Who you owe money to North East Lincolnshire Council

The amount you owe them £ 211.00

Their ref./account no.


(if applicable) 5501

Enforcement Details of the court judgement or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable
details
A Liability Order has been granted against you on the 30/10/2015 for non payment of Council
Tax and costs at , Grimsby, .

Sum outstanding Debt £ 211.00

Interest £ 0.00

Compliance stage fee £ 75.00

Total sum
£ 286.00
outstanding

(as at the date of this notice)

Registered in England and Wales No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703 165

Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
When to make You must pay, or agree a payment arrangement with the enforcement agent, by:
payment
Date 8th June 2016

Time 23:59

If you do not pay If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit
you and may seize your belongings - this is called 'taking control'. These belongings may then be
sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs
will be added to the amount already owed.

Possible If the sum outstanding remains unpaid or you have not agreed a payment arrangement by the date
additional fees and time above you may be charged the following (enforcement agent to detail further possible fees
and expenses of and expenses
enforcement

Stage Amount £
Enforcement Agent Visit to Take Control of Goods £235.00 + if the debt is above
£1500, 7.5% of the amount
above £1500

Enforcement Visit to Remove Goods £110.00 + if the debt is above


£1500, 7.5% of the amount
above £1500

Where Removal and sale takes place


Storage Costs Actual costs
Locksmiths costs Actual costs
Any relevant Court Application fees Actual fees

Auctioneers costs where the sale is held on the


Auctioneers premises

Auctioneers Commission Not exceeding 15% of the


sum realised

Auctioneers out of pocket expenses Actual costs


Reasonable Advertising costs Actual costs

Auctioneers costs where the sale is held on


other
premises
Not exceeding 7.5% of the
Auctioneers Commission sum realised

Auctioneers out of pocket expenses Actual costs


Reasonable Advertising costs Actual costs
Internet auction costs Actual costs
In some circumstances exceptional costs will apply Agreed by Court
Crime report to Humberside Police - 26 May 2016

North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendale’s bailiffs to enforce alleged outstanding
Council Tax. I have become aware about this after receiving a letter dated 11 May 2016 from the
enforcement firm.

There is no money owed. The council engineered the debt and did so criminally by lying to the
court. This matter is known to Humberside police and although the force has decided against
investigating the matter it may now that there are further consequences need to review its decision.
Incidentally, evidence which proves the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt has been provided
to the force. In assistance I will provide you with the relevant reference which is CO 461/15.

Rossendale’s letter refers to a schedule of fees which had not been enclosed, perhaps due to an
oversight or because the generic letter had not been updated and contained information that was
once necessary but not now. In any event, I believe those fees are likely to amount to £310,
comprising a £75 compliance fee and £235 enforcement charge which when added to the
unwarranted summons costs will amount to £430. It is therefore reasonable to assume that at this
stage the sum that the council will attempt to defraud me of will be £430.

In reference to CO 461/15, my prediction had the makings of being accurate. See quoted paragraphs
of my 30 December 2015 email to Inspector Allan Harvey in this matter:

“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."

NELC’s Revenues & Benefits service has not as you would have expected considered it a close
shave to have avoided being the subject of a fraud investigation, but emboldened it to take further
liberties with the law and seen it as a green light to continue its vendetta.

As I’m sure the force knows where this is heading, I expect now should be an appropriate time to
have this matter investigated.
From: "Kynaston, John 8797" <John.Kynaston@humberside.pnn.police.uk>
To: < @gmail.com>
Sent: 26 May 2016 21:25
Subject: On Line Report [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR]

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR

To Mr
I have forwarded your e mail on.

Please do not respond to this email

Humberside Police

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR


PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

4216/10465/1/2/531/964267 Tel: 0844701 3980


Mr Fax: 0844 701 3982
Email: enquiries@rossendales.com
Grimsby Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address

Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax


Outstanding Amount: £286.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 6th June 2016

REMINDER Notice of Enforcement - Please Do Not Ignore

Dear Mr

We wrote to you recently advising of the intention to make a visit to your property for the purpose of taking
control of your goods for the unpaid amount below, relating to Council Tax and costs outstanding to North
East Lincolnshire Council for a court order issued against you on the 30/10/2015.

North East Lincolnshire Council amount: £211.00


Enforcement Costs incurred: £75.00
Paid £0.00
Total Amount Due: £286.00

To avoid this action you were required to make contact or make arrangements to pay this account, to date
suitable arrangements have not been made and your account still remains outstanding. If you do not deal
with this matter now, an enforcement agent will visit your property for the purpose of taking control
of goods.

The total amount due shown above needs to be paid in full direct to Rossendales Ltd., NOT THE COUNCIL
immediately otherwise further action will be taken to recover the amount due. Additional costs of a minimum
of £235.00 will be applicable if we are required to take further action to secure payment, which may include
goods being removed and sold. Details of these costs are detailed on the back of this notice

Request for Payment Arrangement

If you need extra time to pay, please complete the income and expenditure form sent with this letter and
return the information to us immediately. Please note that your offer of payment may not be accepted and we
may require you to pay a higher amount than you have offered. We will write to you and let you know if your
payment offer has been agreed, or whether it will have to be increased.

For and on behalf of

Rossendales Limited

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165


Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
The Lawns
Harland Way
The Office of Keith Hunter Cottingham
HU16 5SN

www.humberside-pcc.gov.uk

Contact: Louise Johnson


Mr
Tel: 01482220731
e-mail: louise.johnson@humberside.pnn.police.uk
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire Our ref: LJ/1697

13 June 2016

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for your letter dated 11 May 2016 (received 3 June 2016) to the Police and
Crime Commissioner for Humberside, Keith Hunter. Following discussion with the
Commissioner, I acknowledge and respond on his behalf.

The Commissioner has been advised that you have previously corresponded with the
Police Authority and with the former Police and Crime Commissioner.

The concerns that you have raised have been addressed via the correct channels, be
that the courts or the police complaints process. You will have been advised of any
appeal rights available to you.

As advised in our response to a Freedom of Information request that you submitted in


January 2016, the role and powers of a Police and Crime Commissioner are set out in
the Policing Protocol Order 2011. These powers do not permit the Commissioner to
interfere in operational policing matters nor the handling of individual complaints.
Changes to the powers of Police and Crime Commissioners in relation to the handling
of complaints against the police are to be introduced by the Policing and Crime Bill but
I am afraid that is not due to be enacted until next year.

Whilst I accept that you are unhappy with the outcomes that you have received, the
Commissioner has been advised of your concerns but is not able to act as an
additional appeal mechanism and I am afraid he is therefore unable to assist you in
this matter.

Yours sincerely

Louise Johnson
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside
PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

*
1152/3173/1/1/532/973996
Tel: 0844701 3980
Mr Fax: 0844 701 3982
Email: enquiries@rossendales.com
Grimsby Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address

Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax


Outstanding Amount: £286.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 16th June 2016

Notice of Enforcement Agent Visit – Please Do Not Ignore

Dear Mr

As you have ignored all previous correspondence on this matter I now inform you that your debt has been
allocated to an Enforcement Agent to visit your address to recover the amount detailed below, relating to
Council Tax and costs outstanding to North East Lincolnshire Council for a court order issued against you on
30/10/2015

North East Lincolnshire Council amount: £211.00


Enforcement Costs incurred: £75.00
Paid £0.00
Total Amount Due: £286.00

When the Enforcement Agent visits your address, this will immediately result in further costs of a
minimum of £235.00 being added to your bill.

To avoid these costs the total amount due shown above needs to be paid in full direct to Rossendales Ltd.,
NOT THE COUNCIL immediately and before the visit is made.

Any goods that you own are now at risk of being removed and sold, all potential costs are shown on the back
of this notice.

The details on how to pay the amount shown are on the back of this notice.

If you cannot pay in full or dispute the amount due then you need to contact us immediately; details on how
to do this are shown on the back of this notice.

Please note that any other amounts you may owe to the Council that are not covered by this court order
need to be paid as previously advised.

For and on behalf of

Rossendales Limited

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165


Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
PO Box 324
Rossendales
BB4 0GE
Tel: 0844 701 3980

Our Ref: Client & Ref: SEQ No:

To:

Date:

Time

FOR NON PAYMENT OF COUNCIL TAX / NATIONAL NON DOMESTIC


RATES / ROAD TRAFFIC TMA
ENFORCEMENT AGENT ATTENDANCE
I have attended today with the intention of Taking Control of your goods
to discharge the above debt.

AMOUNT OUTSTANDING £

If you cannot pay this amount in full you should be aware that even at this late
stage with an initial payment of you can still pay by instalments.

You may pay by Postal Order, Cash, Bank Draft or Debit/Credit Card.

Payment should be made direct to the Enforcement Agent below to avoid


unnecessary action

DO NOT DISREGARD THIS NOTICE


Enforcement Agent in Charge: KEITH GRICE
07515050577
Contact Number:

Calls may be recorded / monitored for quality control and training purposes. Calls to 084 numbers
are free on some BT call plans, but will cost 4 pence per minute from landlines, depending on your
provider and call package. Calls from mobiles may cost more depending on your network.

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Rossendales Ltd, Registered in England & Wales, Reg.Office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR.
Reg No: 1501584 VAT Reg No: 354 703 165
PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

2180/7267/1/1/538/995511 Tel: 0844701 3980


Mr Fax: 0844 701 3982
Email: enquiries@rossendales.com
Grimsby Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality control and training purposes

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost
6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge.

Re Address

Grimsby

Client: North East Lincolnshire Council - Council Tax


Outstanding Amount: £521.00
Reference Number: 5501
Our Reference: 28628956
Date: 11th July 2016

Dear Mr

FINAL REMINDER – DO NOT IGNORE

North East Lincolnshire Council amount: £211.00


Enforcement Costs incurred: £310.00
Paid £0.00
Total Amount Due: £521.00

Despite previous correspondence you have not made payment to clear the overdue balance above.

When the Enforcement Agent attends with the intention to take control of and remove your goods for the
purpose of sale you will be immediately liable for further enforcement costs as detailed on the back of this
letter.

In order to avoid the removal of your goods you must contact us immediately on 0844 701 3980

NO FURTHER REMINDERS WILL BE ISSUED


Please ensure that all correspondence/payments quote our-reference number and your name and address.

Yours Faithfully

Enforcement Agent Manager

Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 703165


Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
Page 1 of 1

From: “ ”< @gmail.com>


To: <enquiries@rossendales.com>
Cc: "Cllr - Jackson, Philip" <philip.jackson@nelincs.gov.uk>; <ray.oxby@nelincs.gov.uk>;
<A.Hobley@coinweb.lgo.org.uk>; "!enquiries" <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>; "Hanmer, Peter"
<Peter.Hanmer@nlbusinessconnect.co.uk>; "Maione, Tony" <Tony.Maione@Nelincs.gov.uk>;
<christina.mcgilligan-fell@nelincs.gov.uk>; "Walsh, Rob" <Rob.Walsh@Nelincs.gov.uk>; "Marsh,
Mary" <Mary.Marsh@nelincs.gov.uk>; <newsdesk@grimsbytelegraph.co.uk>; "Jones, Debbie"
<debbie.jones2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 12 July 2016 10:11
Subject: Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Council Tax - North East Lincolnshire Council, Reference Number: 28628956

Recovery Officers at North East Lincolnshire Council have engaged in a vendetta that has and continues to
waste resources of numerous public services costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those
responsible are clearly abusing their positions and wouldn't think twice about using any means available to
further their campaign. Clearly they see Rossendales as a way of doing this by having its bailiffs harass me to
attempt recovery of a debt which the council only has permission to enforce as a result of misleading the court
by submitting false evidence.

It is worth pointing out that the vendetta was sparked off by my objection to the council's mishandling of a
complaint a number of years ago into Rossendales application of several hundred pounds in fees for such
things as phantom visits, levying randomly on a vehicle in a residential car park (surprisingly not owned by
myself) and negligently handling sensitive personal information relating to enforcement.

North East Lincolnshire Council has appointed Rossendales knowing full well that none of its bailiffs will be
successful in obtaining any monies from myself and so the work undertaken amounting to £310 accruing so
far in fees will have to be written off.

Despite not owing the debt, I do happen to know that the success of a bailiff obtaining fees from the debtor
relies solely on the taxpayer being unaware that there is no obligation to engage with the enforcement
company.

I suggest that if Rossendales want to recover its losses it does so by demanding compensation from those
officers at the council who have abused their position by instructing Rossendales to further their personal
vendetta.

Yours sincerely

11/08/2016
PO Box 324
Rossendale
BB4 0GE

Tel: 0844 701 3980


Fax: 0844 701 3982

Calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and


calls to our 0844 numbers cost 6p per minute, plus
Mr your phone company's access Charge.

Calls may be recorded/monitored for quality


Grimsby control and training purposes

Our Ref: 28628956 Date: 13 July 2016

Clients Ref: 5501

Dear Sir/Madam,

North East Lincolnshire Council C Tax - TCE

Thank you for letting us know about your concerns.

We are sorry to learn that you are not happy. We take the concerns you have raised very
seriously and will look into them carefully.

We will give your complaint our full attention and make sure that it is dealt with by someone with
the right knowledge and experience.

We will investigate your concerns and we may contact you to gather further information. We will
ensure that we can answer any queries and address your complaint in full. Once we have
completed our investigation we will provide you with a resolution.

Full details of our complaints procedure which details how we deal with complaints and the
steps we follow, can be found at http://www.Rossendales.com.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on the number above.

Yours faithfully

Complaints Manager

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)
Registered in England No 1501584 VAT Reg No 354 7031 65
Rossendales limited registered office: Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR
Rossendales Limited
Private And Confidential PO Box 324
Mr
Rossendale
Grimsby BB4 0GE
Tel: 0844 701 3980
Fax: 01706 831 126

14 July 2016

Our Ref: 28628956 Client Ref: 5501

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for your email dated 12th July.

As you are aware we act upon the instructions of NE Lincs Council to recover monies owed for
unpaid Council Tax after a Liability Order was issued against you in a court of law. As I'm sure
you can appreciate when a matter has reached this stage our client requires us to execute the
Liability Order and recover a debt promptly and effectively.

We wrote to you on 11th May to advise of our involvement and offered a 14 day grace period
in which the matter could be resolved without incurring statutory fees. As we received no reply
the 'Notice of Enforcement' that was served upon you on 25th May advise further of our lawful
involvement, the fee schedule, (set in law), that would now apply as recovery action is taken
and asked you to urgently contact us. With no contact nor payment from you we wrote to you
again twice.

I have noted from your email that you dispute your liability in respect of this matter. The
Council however does not regard the matter as in dispute and their instructions to us remain to
collect the full balance. Please contact us with your proposals to discharge this debt in order to
prevent further action.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Davies.
Complaints Team
Rossendales Limited

* Please be aware that calls to our 0845 numbers cost 2p per minute and calls to our 0844 numbers cost 6p per minute, plus your phone company's access Charge

Rossendales Limited - Registered in England & Wales - Registered No 1501584


Rutland House, 8th Floor, 148 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2JR - VAT No 795 928 947 Rossendales limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for accounts formed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (amended 2006)

Похожие интересы