Dear Humberside Police,

Please supply me with the number of incidents Humberside Police have on record regarding Rossendale's bailiffs for the period 2006 to date.

For the purpose of this FOI I define an "incident" as any complaint, reporting of crime for example fraud, breaches of data protection or violence etc.

To clarify the response could results be put into the following categories:

1) Complaints either in person, by phone or in writing?

2) Reportings of crime.

3) Nature of complaint/reporting; fraud or violence for example.

4) The degree to which the complaint/reporting was escalated if for example it was not acted on.

i.e.

i) Discipline and Complaints section.

ii) Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

5) If any, the number of complaints upheld in item 4).

6) Number of investigations resulting from reportings of crime.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Humberside Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Humberside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Rossendales Bailiffs'.

I have reason to doubt that the information I've received in the response to my FOI is accurate.

I say this simply because I'm aware there has been a particular complaint with regards Rossendales bailiff's attempted fraud which is not listed in your attached data. If there is one omission it is reasonable to assume there are others.

I'm also surprised no information is held in relation to parts 4, 5 and 6 of my request. Again I'm aware of a particular instance where the Discipline and Complaints section, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission have been involved because of a reporting of crime about rossendales.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ro...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

Thank you for your reply.

Could you please update your original response to reflect both omissions of:

1. the reporting of Rossendales for attempted fraud, and

2. the complaint regarding the Discipline and Complaints section.

If you could include them in the same format as those originally listed, i.e. a description and an indication as to whether or not the complaint/reporting were acted on.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

With regards my email 8 June 2011, could you please acknowledge whether or not you will be replying to the request.

This will save the trouble of having to contact the Information Commissioner's Office for an independent review.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

I think you are unnecessarily complicating a simple request.

I simply asked – and tactfully, considering you had first provided inaccurate data due to sloppy practices – if you would update your original response.

You had already supplied most of the requested information without the need to divulge personal information or breach any of the DPA/FOIA or indeed quote DPA/FOIA legislation in order to avoid providing information.

So, how is my most recent request to simply amend your factually incorrect first response any different from my first?

Could you please update your original response to reflect both omissions of:

1. the reporting of Rossendales for attempted fraud, and

2. the complaint regarding the Discipline and Complaints section.

If you could include them in the same format as those originally
listed, i.e. a description and an indication as to whether or not
the complaint/reporting were acted on.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

Please acknowledge whether or not you are going to answer my question.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

I take it from your obstructive email of 4 July that you are not going to provide the information to my simple request.

Out of awkwardness you have clearly turned this FOI request into an investigation into my motives for requiring this information.

Whether or not you have deduced correctly that the information I'm seeking is my own personal data is completely irrelevant and I have no interest in submitting a Subject Access Request nor has this FOI in any way constituted an attempt to submit a SAR with the intention of saving the £10 fee normally associated with this type of request.

The fact I'm questioning the information supplied in your response is because I had reason to believe it was incomplete therefore inaccurate, not because I wanted specific details about information held by the Police about myself.

It seems Humberside Police are prepared to investigate into trivial matters like this FOI request in order to get out of responding; it is a pity they are not so keen to investigate serious cases of fraud crime systematically committed by Rossendales bailiffs on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

Are you back in your office yet?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

Please indicate whether or not you are going to respond to my emails?

I don't mind either way, but if you are refusing to deal with this request than I'd rather you let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

I trust you are now back in your office and will be attending to my emails of 4, 6 and 10 July, 19 and 31 of August and today's, 5 September.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

I wrote to the Information Commissioners Office on 11 July for an independent review with regards this FOI request.

Other than receiving a reply on 21 July stating that they had allocated the case to one of their resolution teams, I have received no further correspondence from them.

Am I correct in assuming your response,

that you're "unable to respond any further at this time",

is down to the Information Commissioners Office contacting you about this?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Dear Green, James 8935,

Well it seems a little more information has been prized out of you.

I will not bother wasting any more of my time trying to find out from a corrupt organisation that aids and abets criminal gangs, why information is either not recorded properly or it just denies exists.

Quite clearly I would not have been trying to find out what correspondence I'd sent to Humberside Police, why would I, after all I sent it.

I was obviously trying to establish if it had been properly recorded i.e. if their was any evidence that such reporting of crime or complaints existed.

If you have no record of much of the information, perhaps it will be beneficial to you if I resend it.

GRIMSBY POLICE STATION
Victoria Street
Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN31 1PE

14/03/09

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Reporting a firm of bailiffs for criminal activity

I have received a document (which I have enclosed) from a firm of bailiffs called Rossendales dated March 2009 demanding a payment of money being £294.50 as relating to unpaid COUNCIL TAX for an original debt of £57.00 which leaves a difference of £237.50 for the bailiffs fees. However on closer inspection it has irregulatities with prescribed bailiff regulations and commits an offence under Section 2 and Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

I have sought legal advice and I have looked at Regulation 45(2) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and the bailiffs are seeking to defraud me of money by overcharging me with their fees. I appreciate the public are generally less informed of the regulations prescribing bailiffs fees, but this demand without doubt is fraudulent in nature. The document itself appears to be computer-generated and indicates this firm of bailiffs are routinely and systematically defrauding people en-mass and may be participating in organised crime or a large scale money making scam.

I understand it is not an offence to deny a bailiff access to my home or to my goods. I confirm that no bailiff has levied on my goods or gained peaceful entry to my property and there is no entitlement for a bailiff to charge or extort fees from me in this way.

Contrary to what the document states, there are no grounds for a bailiff to charge me the above fee or any additional enforcement costs incurred and the bailiffs have made a factual error in their interpretation of the law with intent to make a gain for themselves.

I understand it is a criminal offence to defraud people in this way, or make a gain, or to obtain a money transfer for himself or his firm by making a false representation or by misuse of their position. I also understand its an offence for a firms director to benefit from the proceeds of crime by receiving money obtained from a fraud. I therefore ask the criminal element of this matter is fully investigated under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and I have enclosed relevant documentation to satisfy the criteria for the CPS to start a criminal prosecution.

I am happy to stand as a witness or provide a statement in a criminal proceeding against a suspect, please let me know if you need further information. Meanwhile, please provide me with a crime number.

Yours Faithfully

Neil Gilliatt

Encs: Copy of bailiff receipt

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Our Ref: DMKlSLS/MSU2800

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxx Grimsby
N E Lincolnshire
DN32000

31st March 2009

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Re: Rossendales Bailiffs - Reporting the firm for Criminal Activity

Thank you for your letter dated 14th March 2009, which we received by email on 31st March 2009 via the Humberside Police Media Department.

Your enquiry relating to the above, Rossendales Bailiffs, has been forwarded for review to our Crime Management Unit who will contact you in a timely manner to inform you of their findings.

We advise that any new information or incident to be reported in order for it to be filtered for investigation through the usual Humberside Police channels.

Yours Faithfully

Management Support Unit Administrative Support Assistant

MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section Hessle Police Station
Hessle Road
HULL
HU47BA

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx Grimsby
N E Lincolnshire
DN32 000

Date 19/05/09

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Re; Your complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs

Your letter dated 31st March has been passed to me for comment.

I have read the file and from your original debt of £57 Rossendales have added £237.50 in costs.

However at this stage I cannot see the document that explains why these costs have been added therefore I cannot comment on whether any criminal offences have been committed.

I presume you have made contact with Rossendales to deal with this matter and now have an explanation of these costs.

At this stage we will not be starting a criminal investigation. However if you have further evidence that a crime has occurred or wish to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me via the contact details on this letter heading.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxx Xxxxx

Det Insp 0000

From: NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]>
Date: 22 May 2009 17:38
To: <[email address]>
Subject: Your ref: xxx/11/09 Complaint against Rossendales Bailifs

Dear Det Insp Xxxxx,

Re: Complaint against Rossendales Bailifs

Thank you for your letter 19/05/09.

I have requested from the client of Rossendales Bailifs, an itemised breakdown of all the fees and charges regarding this matter.

Please find contents of emails regarding the request for informationt:-

-----Original Message-----
From: NEIL GILLIATT [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 16 March 2009 12:30
To: Xxxxx, Xxxx
Cc: xxxxx, xxxxx; Cllr - xxxxxx, xxxx
Subject: Council Tax/Rossendales

Dear Xxxxx

Re: Neil Gilliatt xxxxxxxxxx: Request for Information

I write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and request you send me the following.

An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained by your bailiff.

The name and address of the court that certificated your bailiff.

I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

Council's reply............

RE: Council Tax/RossendalesMonday, 16 March, 2009 2:48 PM
From: "x, x" <[email address]>Add sender to Contacts To: [email address]

Dear Mr Gilliatt

I have forwarded your Request for Information e-mail to Xxxxx Xxxxxx @ Rossendales as I do not have access to all the information you have requested. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this

Regards Xxxxxx
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

As yet I have received nothing back. I would imagine this information will not easily be obtained.

I will contact the Council again regarding this information.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

From: NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]>
Date: 26 May 2009 15:50
To: [email address]
Subject: Fw: Request for Information Re: xxxxxxxxxxx / Your ref: xxx/11/09

On Tue, 26/5/09, NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]> wrote:

From: NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]>
Subject: Request for Information Re: xxxxxxxxxx
To: [email address]
Cc: [email address], [email address]
Date: Tuesday, 26 May, 2009, 3:41 PM

Dear Xxxx

Re: Neil Gilliatt xxxxxxxxxx: Request for Information

The following are the contents of emails sent regarding the attached demand of £294.50 from your bailiffs Rossendales:-

Dear Xxxxxx

I write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and request you send me the following.

An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained by your bailiff.

The name and address of the court that certificated your bailiff.

I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

Your reply ..........................

Dear Mr Gilliatt

I have forwarded your Request for Information e-mail to Xxx Xxxx @ Rossendales as I do not have access to all the information you have requested.
I am sorry for any inconvenience caused by this

Regards Xxxxx

I have not yet received any explanation as to how this sum was achieved and so I am asking you again (as you are the client of Rossendales and responsible overall) to send me the information originally requested.

I have had several demands from Rossendales, with no consistency with the sums involved. So could you obtain an explanation for the sum of £294.50 as the attached demand please.

Yours Sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

From: NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]>
Date: 01 June 2009 18:07
To: [email address]
Subject: xxx/11/09

Dear Det Insp Xxxxx

Re: Complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs

Please find attached a letter recently received from Rossendales bailiffs regarding their breakdown of costs and payments. (please note it doesn't relate to the demand of £294.50 that I requested the breakdown of costs and payments).

I can't make any sense of them. The best I can do is list dates of outstanding debt and the payments I have made, which can be backed up with correspondence from the Council.

Dec 2 2008 Dept £141 (£84 council tax + £57 fines)

Jan 8 2009 Paid £84 (council tax paid off fully. £57 fines outstanding)

March 19 2009 Paid £57 (no outstanding money owed to the Council)

In March when the demand of £294.50 was made the money owed to the council was £57.

Additional information:

1) I have no correspondence with any reference to the first bailiff listed on Rossendales letter.

2) Reference to Mar 5 2009 attendance /Van £110, on the letter.
Why would they charge for a van to remove goods, when they are not entitled to do this.

I hope you now have enough evidence to establish that a crime has occurred and will be starting a criminal investigation.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

From: NEIL GILLIATT <[email address]>
Date: 22 June 2009 19:20
To: [email address]
Subject: Your ref: xxx/11/09 (Confirmation of receipt of emails)

Dear Det Insp Xxxxxx

Re: Complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs

Could you please confirm the following relating to Rossendales bailiffs:-

i) Receipt of letter sent to the Police by myself dated: 14/3/09 (Re: Reporting a firm of bailiffs for Criminal activity)

ii) Receipt of emails with attachments sent to you by myself on the dates: 22/5/09, 26/5/09, 01/6/09

iii) Letter sent to me by yourself on 22/5/09

Could you tell me if a criminal investigation is underway.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section
Hessle Police Station
Hessle Road
Hull
HU4 7BA

25/06/09

Your Ref: 000/11/09

Dear Det Insp Xxxxx

Re: Complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs

Could you please confirm the following relating to Rossendales bailiffs:-

i) Receipt of letter sent to the Police by myself dated: 14/3/09

Re: Reporting a firm of bailiffs for Criminal activity

ii) Receipt of emails with attachments sent to you by myself on the following dates:-

22/5/09, 26/5/09, 01/6/09, 22/5/09

iii) Letter sent to me by yourself on 22/5/09

Could you let me know if a criminal investigation is underway or if you need any further details.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxx Grimsby
N E Lincolnshire
DN32000

Date unknown

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Re; Your complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs

Apologies for the delay in replying to you I have been making some enquiries of my own and have also spoken to a representative of the Crown Prosecution Service on this matter.

As I understand situation is as follows;

1/ This matter originates from an unpaid Council Tax bill which is clearly not an issue for the police.

2/ Subsequent to this Rossendale Bailiffs were appointed on behalf of North East Lines Council to pursue this debt.

3/ Rossendales have now made a demand from you of £294.50 costs which you are disputing and have not paid.

4/ You are of the opinion Rossendales have deliberately made fraudulent claims for costs against you and have reported this to the police.

Having reviewed the evidence and sought further advice my recommendation is that at this stage Humberside police do not investigate this matter. The reasons are as follows;

1/ You have not paid Rossendales costs and have made it clear to the company you dispute these costs. There is a civil procedure to follow to decide whether you should be liable for the costs. Until that has been completed it is not possible to say a crime has been committed. People dispute invoices on a daily basis, and often there are mistakes on invoices. Unless this has been done with deliberate criminal intent this is not a criminal matter. If at the end of the civil proceedings there is evidence of clear criminal intent this can be revisited.

2/ The Crown Prosecution Lawyer agrees with my reasoning and can see no way of proceeding towards charges and court appearances given the current position.

3/ I make decisions on whether the police should investigate fraud using the guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers issued 6th September 2004. These guidelines are titled Policing Priorities for Fraud Cases and recommend how the resources of Humberside Police should be used when investigating fraud. Currently your case does not meet the recommended priorities.

You will be disappointed by my decision. If on conclusion of the civil dispute there is new evidence of criminal activity I will review my position.

Yours sincerely

Xxxx Xxxxx
Det Insp 0000

MAJOR CRIME UNIT

Economic Crime Section
Hessle Police Station
Hessle Road
Hull
HU4 7BA

26/04/10

Your Ref: 000/11/09

Dear Det Insp Xxxxx

Re: Complaint against Rossendales Bailiffs and North East Lincolnshire Council

With reference to your letter dated 19/05/09 and your recommendation that Humberside Police do not investigate the matter. I have now completed the NELC formal complaints procedure and appealed to the local government ombudsman.

Although I have not had a satisfactory outcome to my complaints with the Local Authority or the L.G.O. The process has uncovered acts of fraud and illegality far exceeding what was first thought.

For your information to consider this case I will include as a preliminary a summary of events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales were negligent or criminal.

1. NELC being negligent in sending my case to Rossendales, because a quick reference to my payment history would indicate that there was no risk of me defaulting.

2. Failure of Rossendales Ltd. and the NELC to transfer information relating to my council tax account on a daily basis, resulting in Rossendales overcharging from the outset.

3. Alleged first visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on 15th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £24.50, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

“The National Standards for Enforcement Agents require that, on every visit which incurs a fee, the bailiff will leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”

Rossendales response:

“A first visit fee (Statutory Section 1A cost) of £24.50 was incurred in respect of his attendance”

NELC response:

“The Bailiffs states when he received no reply to the ringing of the door bell he left a note in an envelope addressed to you under the security door. This would have included the information regarding the charges.”

Reading between the lines of the two responses would indicate that:

A) No visit was actually made; therefore an act of fraud had been committed.

B) He attended but did not leave a notice detailing the fees charged; therefore an act of fraud had been committed.

C) He left the note wedged to the outside of the security door (under the door is not possible) as they did with a later correspondence, which would be a breach of the Data Protection Act and contravene The National Standards for Enforcement Agents requirements, as it had clearly blown away or was intercepted by someone passing.

Data Protection Act 1998, references:

i. A breach of the seventh data protection principle in Part I of Schedule 1

ii. Sensitive personal data under section 2 of the Act

iii. Section 4(4) of the Act provides that, subject to section 27(1) of the Act, it is the duty of a data controller to comply with the data protection principles in relation to all personal data in respect of which it is a data controller.

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents require that “Enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor. Where the debtor is not seen, the relevant documents must be left at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.”

4. Alleged second visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on 18th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £18, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

Rossendales response:

“A neighbour confirmed you resided at the property. The bailiff left an attendance note, instruction sheet and request to pay by installments form in a sealed envelope addressed to yourself. A second visit fee of £18 was incurred in respect of this visit.”

NELC response:

“A letter, including charges was left in an envelope marked for your attention.”

From these responses it would appear that if a visit actually did take place and a neighbour did in fact confirm my address, then the information obtained from my neighbour must have been incorrect because I did not receive any correspondence. My residence is clearly numbered and the bailiff would have had my correct address.

Therefore it is my opinion that if the bailiff did not attend on that day, an act of fraud had been committed by trying to charge a fee. And if the neighbour story is true, this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, and contravene The National Standards for Enforcement Agents requirements, as it had clearly reached the wrong resident.

5. An illegal levy and fraudulent levy fee of £25 for the distraint of a vehicle by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009, in which I did not receive a notice of distress, had no knowledge about it and it was not my vehicle.

Ref: Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992

Rossendales response:

“The bailiff attended your property on the 5th March 2009 and levied on a vehicle. I have enclosed copy of the Notice of Distress for your information. A levy fee and van costs were incurred in respect of this visit. A notice of removal was also left in a sealed envelope addressed to yourself.

NELC response:

“Rossendale’s have already stated in their letter to you dated 21st July 2009, that when they attended your property on 5th March 2009 and levied on a vehicle they left notification of this levy in an envelope marked for your attention under the security door”.

In fact there was a note wedged to the exterior of the security door which by chance I intercepted. It was a demand headed bailiff removal and threatening the removal of goods. Which when left in this way would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, as it could clearly be available for anyone passing.

Contrary to the NELC’s response, there was NO notification of the levy left in any way.

Summary of levy related events:

On the 5th March 2009 Mr. Ajoy Singh allegedly created a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he had levied against a vehicle which was in the car park at the apartment complex where I live.

Fees I was charged by Rossendales were not itemised, until 27th May 2009 in response to a subject access request in which a levy fee was listed. (I knew nothing about the levy).

I was unaware that the bailiff had levied on a vehicle until 21st July 2009 when I was sent a copy of the document in response to a formal complaint about the conduct and application of fees by Rossendales.

There was no notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory handed to me or left with me on the 5th of March 2009, only an envelope I found by chance wedged outside the entrance door to the apartment block of my residence, in which was a demand headed bailiff removal and threatening to remove goods even in my absence. I believe Regulation 45 SI 1992/613 requires a bailiff to hand the debtor a copy of the regulation, a memo of the amount due and a copy of any agreement.

This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the bailiff has randomly selected this car because it was parked close to my home, despite confirmation from the DVLA that Rossendales have access to driver/vehicle data on a next day basis. It is of my opinion that the bailiff’s action was solely to generate an extra fee and in illegally seizing this vehicle he applied a fraudulent £25 levy fee to my account.

6. A fraudulent fee of £60 added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009.

An invented figure of £60 was added to the demand on the 5th of March. Interestingly the copy of the supposed levy document I received in July did not include the £60 overcharge, whereas that received on the day was hand written on the demand. I suspect this would have some relevance to why I did not get to know about the levy?

7. A fraudulent van fee of £110 was added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009.

i. Because there were no goods listed to be removed (i.e. there was no legally required Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory).

ii. The levy was illegal (item 5)

iii. A van and levy fee can not be charged on the same day.

8. A £24.50 Schedule 5 head H fee was fraudulently added to my account.

The Schedule 5 head H fee is levy related and since the levy was illegal (item 5) this would make this charge fraudulent.

9. Local Authority refusing payment.

On the 12/03/09 I telephoned the council offering to pay the outstanding charges to them. The council refused payment and told me it was not possible for them to accept it, and I needed to pay Rossendales.

This contravenes the following:-

“At any time, even if bailiffs have already been instructed, the debtor may pay, or offer to pay, the whole amount of arrears and outstanding charges. The local authority must accept the debtor’s payment or offer of the whole amount owed and instruct the bailiffs not to proceed”.

I’m sorry for having to elaborate so much on the events, but I think it important that as much detail be conveyed to you as possible.

I trust now that you have sufficient information to satisfy the criteria for the CPS to start a criminal prosecution.

Any documents you may require, I have copies of or are on file.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

From: Neil [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 10 May 2010 23:08
To: Xxxxx, Xxxx 0000
Subject: 000/11/09 - North East Lincolnshire Council and their appointed bailiffs Rossendales Ltd

Dear Mr Xxxxx

My complaint against the NELC and their bailiff's criminal activities have been ongoing without any sign of justice for more than a year. Therefore I'm keen to see that an investigation will be underway in the near future and would appreciate if you inform me of any update of the case.

Regards, N. Gilliatt

From: Xxxxx, Xxxxx 0000
To: Neil
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:57 AM
Subject: RE: 000/11/09 - North East Lincolnshire Council and their appointed bailiffs Rossendales Ltd

Neil

I have reviewed the further evidence you have supplied.

As you probably appreciate the definition of Fraud covers a variety of circumstances, not all of which can be investigated by the police.

Home Office circular 47/2004 provides the Home Office guidance on where priority should be given by the police. If you google the circular it is available for anyone to read.

I have given your case considerable thought. I can see why you are unhappy about the circumstances you have found yourself in and why you feel unfairly treated by those involved.

However I cannot justify commencement of an investigation in the circumstances as I feel it will be unlikely to result in a successful criminal conviction.

I do know you will be unhappy with my decision, however I hope you are able to understand why I reach that decision.

Xxxxx Xxxxx
Det Insp 0000
Economic Crime Section

tel 01482 000000

From: Neil [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 11 May 2010 23:39
To: Xxxxx, Xxxx 0000
Subject: Re: PWW/11/09 - North East Lincolnshire Council and their appointed bailiffs Rossendales Ltd

Xxxx,

I'm not surprised by your reply in the slightest, I fully expected you to take what measures were necessary in avoiding this case. However, I have gone to great lengths in providing you with the evidence you need for prosecuting the North East Lincolnshire Council and Rossendales Ltd under the fraud Act and the Data protection Act 1998.

While you feel it would be unlikely to result in a successful criminal conviction your reply today implies that the NELC and their bailiffs are above the law. Is this the case?

Owing to the 10's of 1000's of people who are affected by the illegal activities (encouraged by the local authorities) I assume you must send replies similar to this in a substantial number of cases.

As a council tax payer and a citizen with a moral conscience, I have a duty to do all I can to ensure that an investigation be carried out. Therefore I ask that you reconsider your decision in light of the breaches of the relevant Acts. If this is not possible regrettably I will have to look at taking this further with the IPCC.

I have briefly looked at the homeoffice.gov.uk website at the information regarding "Home Office circular 47/2004" and straight away saw the following:

"Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate."

I take it that this Home Office circular then is a recommendation only.

Yours sincerely.

Neil

From: Xxxx Xxxxx 0000
Sent: 11 May 2011 18:19
To: Neil
Subject: Re: 000/11/09 - North East Lincolnshire Council and their appointed bailiffs Rossendales Ltd

Neil

I have not taken measures to avoid taking this case. As I stated previously I did give considerable time and thought on whether there was a way to prove a criminal case before reaching the conclusion I did.

The Home Officer circular gives recommendations, but it does form the basis of my decision making.

As you rightly say tens of thousands of people are in a similar position to yourself. No one other than you has argued this is a criminal matter worthy of police investigation to me during my 5 years in this post.

I will not reconsider my decision at this stage.

If you wish to report this decision to this IPCC, or indeed the Discipline and Complaints section of Humberside Police I would support this as I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this case with them and take advice if they have an alternative view.

Xxxxx

Humberside Police Headquarters
Priory Police Station
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

24/05/2010

Dear Sir/Madam

I am making a complaint about decisions reached on three separate occasions by Detective Inspector Xxxx Xxxxx of the Economic Crime Section Hessle Police, regarding the criminal activities of North East Lincolnshire Council and their appointed so called reputable bailiffs Rossendales Ltd.

More precisely my complaint deals with the consideration given in determining which cases get priority for investigation, however, as Det. Insp. Xxxxx was allocated this case I have no other option for him being the subject of this grievance.

I first sent a letter dated 14/03/09 (enclosed) to the Grimsby Police Station concerning the unlawful activity of Rossendales bailiffs.

I received no acknowledgement of the letter so on the 26th March I used the online form at this web address (http://www.humberside.police.uk/contact-...) to enquire into the whereabouts of the letter.

I received an email on the 30th March explaining that the division responsible for policing Grimsby had not received the letter. I made enquiries at the Grimsby Police station, and re-submitted the letter by email on the 31st March, to which I received a written reply dated the same day.

I received a letter dated 19/05/09 (enclosed) from Detective Inspector Xxxx Xxxxx explaining that “at this stage we will not be starting a criminal investigation.” Though implying that if further evidence was found he may consider investigating the matter.

Therefore I made further enquiries with the council into how their so called reputable bailiffs had come by the figure they were demanding. Obtaining information through subject access requests etc, while keeping Det. Insp. Xxxxx informed by email (enclosed).

I received another letter DATED 19/05/09 (enclosed). I assume the date on this letter was a typing error and would suggest the date was more likely to be around the end of June. The letter explained that the matter originated from an unpaid Council Tax bill which was clearly not an issue for the Police, and that his “recommendation is that at this stage Humberside police do not investigate this matter.”

On this occasion the excuse not to investigate the matter was attributed to guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers issued 6th September 2004, which are used to make decisions on whether the Police should investigate fraud.

However, he also explained that “If on conclusion of the civil dispute there is new evidence of criminal activity I will review my position.”

I began the Council’s formal complaints procedure In July-09 and on the 21st December I received the concluding response to the 4th stage of the procedure. And due to the unsatisfactory outcome to the complaint, I then appealed to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Although my complaints with the Local Authority and the L.G.O. were unsatisfactory and clearly a cover-up, the process had exposed and confirmed attempts of fraud and clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I sent a letter dated 26/04/2010 (enclosed) to Det. Insp. Xxxxx, summarising the events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales acted negligently or unlawfully. I also provided clear references to breaches of the Data Protection Act, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 and non compliance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

You will no doubt appreciate my disappointment, considering the efforts I had gone to, in learning for a third time that a decision had been made not to investigate the matter. On this occasion the “Home Office circular 47/2004”, (which provides the Home Office guidance on where priority should be given by the police) was used as the excuse not to investigate.

I looked at a website with information regarding the "Home Office circular 47/2004" and straight away saw the following:

"Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate."

I think it is fair to say that an investigation of this nature i.e. into a Local Authority and their contracted bailiff company, was never going to happen from the outset when my first letter went missing and was never distributed to the relevant department.

If the Police department had been straight with me from the start i.e. admitted that an investigation would never take place, I could have considered another course of action. Instead, due to misleading responses from the Police, I have spent literally months battling with one organisation after another obtaining the evidence requested of me and needed for a prosecution.

It maybe your opinion that I want revenge for the treatment I have received at the hands of the Council and their bailiffs, well that isn’t the reason, my experience with these crooks and their actions for such a trivial matter has opened my eyes to the corrupt procedures endorsed by the authorities and I’m sickened that it is allowed to go on.

The remainder of this complaint I hope, will serve to express (1) my opinion of this vile practice carried out by local authorities and their accomplices, the private bailiff companies and (2) A commentary of Rossendales reply to my initial formal complaint, which shows complete incompetence and demonstrates their unsuitability to be involved in the industry they’re in.

Treatment received at the hands of the Council and their bailiffs

It disturbs me that our Local Authorities, recklessly employ who they claim are reputable bailiffs to bully and in the case of the vulnerable, terrorise residents into paying money owed to the council and to facilitate lining the pockets of the immoral bailiff companies, in their obsessive attempts to better other Local authorities council tax collection rates.

The following is quoted from Rossendale’s web site:

"Are you one of the many Local Authorities that recognises the importance of collecting these smaller debts but simply do not have the resource to do so.

Collecting these debts can help achieve that 0.2% you may need to reach your BVPI for the year. With an effective letter and telephone strategy, we have worked in partnership with our clients and successfully collect a debt type that would otherwise be written off at year-end."

A 66 page document entitled “Council Tax Collection Good Practice” (Prepared by the Operational Research Unit for the Local Government Finance division of ODPM), suggests a more likely reason for Local Authorities to contract recovery out to these bailiffs.

From the Document:

10. Bailiffs

10.2. Internal bailiff benefits and considerations

10.2.3. Internal bailiffs have salaries paid by the council (and charge the resident an extra admin fee), whereas external bailiffs take their fee directly from the admin fee charged to the resident, so it does not get recorded on the authority’s books. This means that some authorities could want to get rid of internal bailiffs (even if they have performed well) if the authority’s budget for Council Tax collection and recovery is cut, as an external bailiff’s fee is ‘hidden’ from the council.

10.2.4. Authorities can be worried about what could go wrong. If the bailiff is internal it could reflect badly on the council if something goes wrong (such as a resident complaining for having goods taken when they should not have been), whereas the council can pass the blame if they use an external company.

Councils also exploit the Magistrates court system to add millions of pounds a year by obtaining liability orders at a cost of £3 each. Residents are charged (in the case of North East Lincs council) £57 on top of their council tax bill (19 times the initial outlay), leaving £54, which is described as an administration charge even though these summonses are computer generated letters sent through the post. Other Local Authorities make even more than this, for example Lambeth council makes £124 out of the £127 charged to their residents (over 42 times the initial outlay).

This irresponsible approach to enforcing council tax payments is a system which effectively allows

i) The less well off to subsidise the wealthier.

ii) The private bailiff to disregard the law and defraud the debtor safe in the knowledge that the legal system will turn a blind eye to the system, which is open to abuse.

Council Tax Statistics show that in 2007-08, North East Lincs Council issued summonses to over 20% of council tax payers forcing them to pay an extra £32 on top of their C.T. And over 15% of council tax payers had a further £25 liability order cost to pay bringing their additional fees to £57. This is close to £600,000 extra, paid in summons and liability costs alone by residents of North East Linconshire in that year. In the same year over 6,500 (just under 10% of North East Linconshire’s council tax payers) had their cases referred to bailiffs.

If attachments of earnings and benefits are options available to the council prior to sending round the bailiffs, this indicates that the residents who are forced to deal with the bailiff have no income, thus incurring the greatest burden on the poorest residents. And just because these 6,500 residents have had to deal with the bailiffs it doesn’t necessarily mean that all these people were likely to default.

The problem, much of which is down to computer technology. Automatic generation and dispatch of letters governed by certain parameters written into the computer program, with no human input except for the creation of the obnoxious letters. Their systems obviously can’t differentiate between customers who are likely or not to default. And with no way of considering past payment history to evaluate this, they steam into the recovery process (of which there is no negotiating with them once it has begun).

The following, taken from a North East Lincolnshire Council document entitled “Corporate Debt Recovery Strategy” goes a long way in explaining why residents enquiries are met with such obstructive arrogance.

“Only officers within the Debt Recovery Section, after agreement with the Debt Recovery Manager, will be able to intervene in the recovery cycle to deal with hardship or dispute situations. This includes the ability to make deferred payment arrangements or suspend recovery action due to the debtor’s lack of means.”

“Where performance indicators exist, either locally or nationally, the Council will strive for top quartile performance and will publish actual performance against these targets on an annual basis.”

Like a broken record, our Councils justify their actions which cause misery to hundreds of thousands of residents each year with excuses saying the same thing over and over again.

We have a duty to council tax payers to ensure that we pursue all those without exception who owe us money, Instructing the bailiffs is the last resort but we want to send a message that we will not tolerate non payment of council tax.

The authority has warned that other people who skip payments face the same tough line.

This clearly shows that the Council will not tolerate non payment of Council Tax and that it will take appropriate action against those that refuse to pay. The law-abiding people expect and deserve nothing less.

Like a needle stuck in a particularly irritating groove, these are all typical of what you hear from our council leaders, childishly dividing and gaining support from the smug so called “law-abiding people” by playing them off against those who they categorise as “non payers”.

These issues are not black and white, and the council’s approach to indiscriminately issue financial penalties and instructing bailiffs can not be administered without causing resentment to residents. Consider the inflexibility of the councils system, which through provocation can criminalise residents for what amounts to forgetfulness. Where council tax payers are termed defaulters even when there is no intent of non-payment, for example when an installment is late.

The target driven obsessive machine that the Local authorities operate, inflicts financial burden and misery for tens and thousands of residents as a trade off for exceeding collection rate targets, enabling council leaders their “pats on the back” from central Government and for bailiffs to fleece the poorest, with full backing of the law.

I would think it not beyond the scope of some developer to review their current system and program into it a more sophisticated code which may ‘ALERT and HOLD’ the automatic generation and distribution of these letters to residents who are generally good payers or have no default history? Or would it be that the authorities have come to rely on the £millions of extra revenue these penalties bring in.

What is also objectionable are Local authorities wasting council tax payer’s money in resolving or should I say covering up the thousands of disputes related to these matters, while at the same time providing an opportunity for the parasitic debt enforcement industry to leech public money.

Rossendales are enforcement agents to 150 local authorities across the country and deal with ten’s of thousand's of cases. In their ‘machine like’ operation, letters which are computer generated en-mass meant to bully and intimidate, due to their sheer numbers, make the numbers of cases handed to them an enormous task.

In the light of this it is fair to say that they’re incapable of controlling or monitoring their bailiffs. This lack of control makes pre-emptive action almost impossible and the identification of problems is reliant on the aggrieved residents when they complain. For example if sufficient pressure is put on a bailiff firm by way of complaints to the council, the bailiff company may be forced into being seen to remedy the situation by terminating the employment of the bailiff. This will more likely result in a move to another bailiff company therefore not eliminating just shifting the problem.

Mass processing like this would certainly lead to mistakes especially monitoring the thousands of cases taken on at any one time. For example computer generated letters may be sent to the wrong address or dated earlier than they are sent out and containing non relevant information caused by the attempt to standardise the letter. Morally the Local Authorities should give consideration to the total burden of costs on the debtor before taking measures that increase those costs.

You don’t need to look far to get an idea of how this money making machine works. Even the debt recovery firms themselves don’t bother concealing how they operate. Visiting the websites of these private bailiff firms gives you an insight into the nature of their industry.

The following Enforcement Bailiff Vacancie, advertised on the bailiff company, ‘Jacobs’ website, demonstrates clearly how they deal with debtors cases which are processed in a machine like maner.

“Enforcement Bailiff

Salary: National Minimum Wage plus bonus OTE £35k uncapped

The role is extremely target driven therefore experience of this kind would be beneficial however it is not compulsory.”

Wouldn’t incentives like unlimited earnings in relation to exceeding targets, attract the wrong candidate to an industry that should be conscientiously administering its course of action. It appears obvious that this is an immoral and irresponsible attitude taken by the bailiff companies in encouraging greed at the expense of the vulnerable.

The system as it stands can result in debts being transferred to bailiff companies with collection costs being completely disproportionate to the money owed which is often negligible. In these cases the bailiff would not knowingly wish to deal with them and were it not for the fact that the process is automated they would undoubtedly decline the job. This encourages the bailiff to amass fees making it more financially rewarding, by devising unlawful tactics that nine times out of ten they will get away with, and if reported to the Police or a complaint made to the Court will certainly result in no action being taken.

Rosendale’s reply to the initial stage of my formal complaint to the Council

I will comment on Rossendales response dated 21st July 2009 (enclosed) to give an indication of how incompetently the recovery process is handled. To include the entire correspondence entered into with the Council regarding this matter is beyond the scope of this complaint.

RE NORTH EAST LINCS COUNCIL – COUNCIL TAX 21st July 2009

3rd paragraph:

Only £141 was outstanding to council (of which £57 was summons and liability order fees), not £225. Obviously a failure between Rossendales and the Council in transferring information relating to my account. A procedure which should have been carried out daily, and the failure resulting in Rossendales overcharging from the outset.

I wonder if the bailiffs would have taken on my case if they were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding my case. i.e. the negligible outstanding balance and that I was paying my monthly installments as normal.

First visit fee £24.50 on 15th December 2008. When I incurred this charge, I received no notice of it and there was no evidence that a visit took place. The first I knew of it was when I received a letter from Rossendales, dated 27/05/09 in reply to a Subject Access Request.

4th paragraph:

Second visit fee £18.00 on 18th December 2008. Despite Rossendales claiming they had confirmed my address with a neighbour, like in the first visit I received no notice of it and there was no evidence that a visit took place, not until my reply to the same Subject Access Request.

It is my opinion these were ‘phantom’ visits and in the second instance a phantom notice (they have not claimed to have left a notice on the first visit) and as there was no real financial gain for the Bailiff to take payment at that point. It would be beneficial for them to keep me in the dark as to the stage of proceedings, so they could apply the levy fee and the much higher van cost later, a strategy commonly used by Bailiffs to mount up their fees.

5th paragraph:

Here is a clear example displaying their inability to monitor the ‘factory like’ produced letters. The van notice on 7th January 2009, which was my first correspondence from Rossendales. This letter was in fact dated 12th January 2009 (enclosed), and there is nothing in that letter which refers to “payment in full within 7 days” despite Rossendales comments.

Note also the £267.50 demand. The Council’s account show that my final installment was in their bank on the 8th of January 2009, leaving only the summons and liability order fees of £57 owed to the Council.

Allowing for Rosendale’s already fraudulent fees (£42.50) their demand amounted to an overcharge of £168 over charge. Rosendale’s records had not been updated in a period of nearly six weeks, a procedure which should have been carried out daily.

6th and 7th paragraphs:

The events here are factual, however, communication between the Council and Rossendales was unacceptable having taken over six weeks to finally update my account.

8th paragraph:

Levied on a vehicle on 5th March 2009. I was unaware that Rossendales had levied on a vehicle until I received Rosendale’s letter dated 21st July 2009. (the letter I’m commenting on).

A notice was left which I found by chance wedged outside the entrance door to the apartment block of my residence dated 03/09 (enclosed) headed bailiff removal, which was clearly a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I first saw a copy of the Notice of Distress attached to Rosendale’s letter dated 21st July 2009. There was no notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory handed to me or left with me on the 5th of March 2009 as is legally required.

There was no levy or van fee listed on the notice and nothing indicating they had seized a vehicle. The notice had a demand for £294.50 written in pen. According to Rossendales this should have been £234.50. Amounting to a £60 addition of their already fraudulent fees.

I later learned that Rossendales had charged the following:

Council debt £57.00
First visit fee £24.50
Second visit fee £18.00
Levy fee £25.00
Van fee £110.00

The vehicle levied on was not mine, nor did I know the vehicle’s owner. This is a commonly used strategy within the bailiff industry. He randomly selected this car because it was parked close to my home, despite confirmation from the DVLA that Rossendales have access to driver/vehicle data on a next day basis.

The bailiff’s action was solely to generate an extra fee and had no intention of removing a vehicle in connection with the levy and in illegally seizing this vehicle he applied a fraudulent fee of £25.

A levy fee and van fee can not be charged on the same day. So here we have a fraudulent levy fee, fraudulent £60 added, a fraudulent van fee and an illegal levy. Further more why would Rossendales charge a van fee when they had no goods to take away?

9th paragraph:

Dispute in respect of the levy. I was unaware of the levy until I received Rosendale’s letter dated 21st July 2009. (the letter I’m commenting on). Had they left the legally required notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory I would certainly have disputed it. Further more it was not until Rosendale’s letter 27th May 2009 (enclosed) in reply to a Subject Access Request, that I realised a levy fee had been incurred. Only the levy fee was listed, there was no reference to items levied on.

If the bailiff was attending with the view to taking goods, then why if he intended to remove a vehicle did he not turn up in a vehicle recovery truck?

The letter 17th March 2009 (enclosed) threatened goods removal. But Rossendales had allegedly levied on a vehicle, why didn’t he remove it? Rossendales have already stated that on the previous visit, the bailiff was attending with the view to taking goods. And as far as I’m aware the vehicle was never removed.

Concluding comments

I have been on the receiving end of lies, cover ups and incompetence from Rossendales, the local authority and the LGO with misleading, evasive responses and fobbing off from the Humberside Police department regarding this matter. Further to this I have witnessed the Courts be in support of the bailiff and take no action were he has clearly acted unlawfully in acts of fraud and breaches of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and Distress for Rent Rules 1988.

If after receiving an unsatisfactory outcome to this complaint and a blind eye is turned to these crooks and their vile criminal activities, which is clearly endorsed by the Government. I will take it that I’m “being sent a clear message” (not wanting to use council leader’s terminology) that the law is not to be taken seriously. And if I ever find myself being pursued for any breach of law or legislation by whatever organisation, I will refer back to this episode in justifying my decision not to comply with a corrupt and dysfunctional legal system.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

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

This matter is being dealt with by:

Crime Management Branch/ Operations Branch

on Tel No: 01482597693

11 June2010

QU 134/10/SMT/LTW

Mr Neil GILLlATT
xx Xxxxx Xxxxx
GRIMSBY
DN32000

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Thank you for your complaint received in the Professional Standards Branch on 8 June 2010, which I formally acknowledge.

All complaints are important and accordingly I have directed that it will be investigated by a manager within the Division/Branch responsible who will contact you again as soon as reasonably practicable.

The Force has formally recorded your complaint as a Direction and Control matter. Humberside Police are in receipt of a number of emails from you and Chief Inspector Xxxxx has requested you make contact with him to discuss the issues you raise. To date you have not contacted him. You are clearly unhappy with the actions of the local Bailiffs and the Local Authority with regards to how they enforce and collect with regard to the non payment of Council Tax. You have already complained to the Local Authority and the Local Government Ombudsman. Your papers make it clear that you are unhappy with the outcome of these complaints. Chief Inspector Xxxxxx has examined the papers you have supplied and is of the opinion that no crimes are revealed which means there could not be a criminal investigation. Your complaint is therefore is as a result of your disappointment with the previous complaint enquiries by the Local Authority and the Local Government Ombudsman and Humberside Police Policy of not conducting criminal Investigations into incidents which do not reveal themselves to be criminal in nature. (This is a summary of your complaint only.) If you are not content that we have properly recorded your complaint then you have a right of appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

You have 28 days from the date of this letter within which to make your appeal to the IPCC. The 28th day is 9 July 2010. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC before the 28 day period expires. Accordingly, you may want to consider using guaranteed next day delivery postal services to ensure your appeal is received within the time limit. Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Once again thank you for contacting us.

We will do our best to expedite matters as quickly as possible.

Your sincerely

X Xxxxxxxx

Superintendent

Enc.

From: Neil
Date: 24 May 2010 20:30
To: [email address]
Subject: Complaint received via Humberside Police Website

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached documents which are associated with my complaint to the Humberside Police.

To accompany this complaint which I would like registering, there is a hard copy of all documents attached to this email, which will be with you within the next couple of days..

Regards,

N. Gilliatt

From: Xxxxx, Xxxx xxxx
Sent: 25 May 2010 09:15
To: [email address]
Subject: FW: Complaint received via the Humberside Police website (ICO Ref: ENQ0308104, LGO Ref: 09 014 453/PEL/sq) (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you for the email. I am however at a loss as to what I can do for you. The documentation seems to me to to show that no crime has been committed and that this is a civil matter between you and the local authority/bailiff company.

I notice that you have sent copies of the emails to numerous people including your member of parliament. I do understand your predicament but I am afraid criminal law does not allow the Police to deal with these circumstances. If you feel you have been overcharged then you may consider taking independent legal advice or making a claim against the local authority/bailiff company in the civil courts.

Should you wish to discuss this with me I can be contacted on 01482 000000

Kind Regards

Xxxxx Xxxxx
Chief Inspector
Professional Standards Branch

From: Xxxxx, Xxxx xxxx [email address]
Sent: 27 May 2010 09:46
To: Neil
Subject: FW: Complaint received via the Humberside Police website
(ICO Ref: ENQ0308104, LGO Ref: 09 014 453/PEL/sq) (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Mr. Gilliatt,

I wondered if you would acknowledge receipt of the below email. I am in receipt of a letter from you, as you promised in your original email dated 24 May 2010, containing the information you had supplied by email. I repeat that this is not in my mind a criminal matter it is a civil matter between you and the Local Authority/Bailiffs. I again advise you to take independent legal advice from a solicitor with regards to the best way to progress your claim.

Kind Regards

Xxxxx Xxxxxx

Chief Inspector
Professional Standards Branch

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email: [email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

4 June 2010

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

I can confirm that we have noted the details of your complaint against the Lincolnshire Police. The case reference number is 2010/010402. Please quote this whenever you contact us.

The IPCC is completely independent of the police service and is responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and for recording your complaint. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your complaint, you have the right to appeal to us.

We now need your permission, either by letter, phone or on the attached form, to pass details of your complaint to the Professional Standards Department of the Lincolnshire Police, which is responsible for enforcing standards of conduct within the force. Without your consent, we cannot pass on the details of a complaint to a force unless, in exceptional cases, the details of the complaint indicate that it is in the public interest to do so.

Please consider that any delay in providing your consent could result in evidence related to your complaint being lost or destroyed (i.e. CCTV footage), or an account of events being forgotten by any potential witnesses.

Yours sincerely

Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: Xxxx, Xxxxx 0000 x.x@ humberside.pnn.police.u k
Sent: 07 June 2010 16:43
To: NEIL
Subject: FW: Complaint Humberside Police (ICO Ref: ENQ0308104, LGO Ref: 09 014 453/PEL/sq, IPCC Ref: 2010/010402, Humb. Police Ref: PWW/11/09) (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Mr Gilliatt,

I am not recording this as a complaint against Police. It is a civil matter between you and the local authority. The below indicates that the proper authority to deal with such complaints is the Local Authority Ombudsman. This is not a matter for the Police Complaints system. I am happy to discuss this issue with you if you give me a call on 01482 000000.

Kind regards

Xxxx Xxxx
Chief Inspector
Professional Standards Branch

April 2010 Insight – Local Government Ombudsman

As it has become increasingly difficult for bailiffs to gain access to debtors’ homes for the purpose of taking goods for council tax, the practice of levying on vehicles in the absence of the debtor has grown. These vehicles may be parked on the debtor’s property or in the road outside. This practice, if abused, can lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding fault with the bailiffs and the council employing them.

The Ombudsman has dealt with at least four unreported complaints when cars parked in the road were levied on, but did not belong to the debtor. In each case the bailiffs assumed that the vehicle belonged to the debtor, but did not check ownership before making the levy. In one case, having levied on the car, a notice was put through the debtor’s letterbox including the fees. As the debtor did not respond, the bailiffs returned to remove the car, but found it was no longer there. Despite not being able to levy on the goods the bailiffs charged a “van fee” (under head C of Schedule 5 of the 1992 Administration and Enforcement Regulations, as amended) of £105, and posted a further notice through the letterbox to advise the debtor of the new, higher debt.

In three other complaints, involving a different authority, the same thing happened – with levy and van fees being charged for cars not owned by the debtors. In those cases the debtors contacted the bailiffs to say that they did not own the cars. The bailiffs acknowledged this, but still insisted that the levy and van fees were payable. When our investigator queried this with the council, they were told that the bailiffs would have checked with the DVLA before moving the car, but even if the debtor did not own the car the levy fees would not have been removed.

These practices are likely to result in a finding of administrative fault by the Ombudsman. There is no question that when bailiffs have carried out a relevant action, they are entitled to the fees the law allows them to charge. However in these cases the levy and van fees were being charged for goods that the bailiff would not have removed - had the car been found and the bailiffs checked before removal, it would have been found they belonged to a third party.

A council may say that a check would be made before any removal, but this does not prevent possible fault. Some debtors will pay when they receive the levy or other notices, and will pay fees that should not have been charged to them. Levying on a car parked on someone’s drive may appear less problematic as it is more likely to belong to the debtor. But if it does not, and levy and van fees are charged and paid, then the debtor has suffered the injustice of paying fees that were not due.

In all four cases the Ombudsman recommended the same remedy. The levy and van fees should be refunded and the council should ensure their bailiffs check ownership of vehicles with the DVLA before levying on them. Debtors should pay what they owe, and if a vehicle belongs to the debtor (and any levy would not be excessive) then levying and charging reasonable fees would not be questioned by the Ombudsman.

All councils are encouraged to ensure their written policies say that bailiffs, whether internal or external, do not levy on vehicles without first checking ownership. Failure to do so could mean that any future complaints to the Ombudsman may be the subject of a public report against the authority.

Andrew Hobley is Senior Investigator with the Local Government Ombudsman.

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

9 June 2010

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge your consent and note the details of your complaint against the Humberside Police. The case reference number is 2010/0'10402, which you should quote in all future correspondence,

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. However, each police force is responsible for considering complaints made against that force and recording your complaint.

Our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to the relevant police force. If you are not happy with the police's decision on recording your complaint, you have the righUo appeal to us.

I have passed the matter to the Professional Standards Department (PSD) of the Humberside Police for them to consider. We have done this with your consent and the police will be contacting you soon.

If you have not heard from the relevant police force within 14 days you may wish to contact them directly.

Humberside Police
Professional Standards
Priory Road
Hull
HU55SF
0845 60 60 222

Yours sincerely

Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: Neil
Date: 07 June 2010 22:58
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject: Case reference number: 2010/010402

Dear Xxxxxx

Re: Case reference number: 2010/010402

You have my permission to pass details of my complaint to the Professional Standards Department of the Lincolnshire/Humberside Police.

Though to save you some time, I suggest you check before sending on the details. This is because I handed a copy of the details to the Police station in Grimsby so they should already have the same documents that I posted to the IPCC.

Regards, Neil.

To: Green, James 8935
Subject: RE: Automatic reply: Out of Office AutoReply: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Rossendales Bailiffs (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

CORRESPONDENCE ORDER CORRECTION

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

This matter is being dealt with by:

Crime Management Branch/ Operations Branch

on Tel No: 01482597693

11 June2010

QU 134/10/SMT/LTW

Mr Neil GILLlATT
xx Xxxxx Xxxxx
GRIMSBY
DN32000

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Thank you for your complaint received in the Professional Standards
Branch on 8 June 2010, which I formally acknowledge.

All complaints are important and accordingly I have directed that
it will be investigated by a manager within the Division/Branch
responsible who will contact you again as soon as reasonably
practicable.

The Force has formally recorded your complaint as a Direction and
Control matter. Humberside Police are in receipt of a number of
emails from you and Chief Inspector Xxxxx has requested you make
contact with him to discuss the issues you raise. To date you have
not contacted him. You are clearly unhappy with the actions of the
local Bailiffs and the Local Authority with regards to how they
enforce and collect with regard to the non payment of Council Tax.
You have already complained to the Local Authority and the Local
Government Ombudsman. Your papers make it clear that you are
unhappy with the outcome of these complaints. Chief Inspector
Xxxxxx has examined the papers you have supplied and is of the
opinion that no crimes are revealed which means there could not be
a criminal investigation. Your complaint is therefore is as a
result of your disappointment with the previous complaint enquiries
by the Local Authority and the Local Government Ombudsman and
Humberside Police Policy of not conducting criminal Investigations
into incidents which do not reveal themselves to be criminal in
nature. (This is a summary of your complaint only.) If you are not
content that we have properly recorded your complaint then you have
a right of appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC).

You have 28 days from the date of this letter within which to make
your appeal to the IPCC. The 28th day is 9 July 2010. You are
advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the
IPCC before the 28 day period expires. Accordingly, you may want to
consider using guaranteed next day delivery postal services to
ensure your appeal is received within the time limit. Appeals
received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are
exceptional circumstances.

Once again thank you for contacting us.

We will do our best to expedite matters as quickly as possible.

Your sincerely

X Xxxxxxxx

Superintendent

Enc.

From: Xxxxx, Xxxxx 0000 X.x@ humberside.pnn.police. uk
Sent: 15 June 2010 12:40
To: Neil
Subject: (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Mr Gilliatt,

Please see attached emails as forwarded to you. Please accept my apologies re the wrong email address. I have clearly copied and pasted the email address but for some reason missed your first name off.

Apologies

Kind Regards

Xxxx Xxxx
Chief Inspector
Professional Standards Branch

From: Xxxx, Xxxxx 0000 x.x@ humberside.pnn.police. uk
Date: 14 June 2010 17:05
To: Neil
Subject: RE: Complaint received via the Humberside Police website Re: QU 134/10/SMT/LTW (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED - NO DESCRIPTOR)

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Thank you for your e-mail.

Chief Inspector Xxxxx has been away from the office today, but he is due back tomorrow. I will ensure that your e-mail is brought to his attention.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxxx Xxxxx
Professional Standards Officer (Support)
Professional Standards Branch
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

From: Neil
Posted At: 14 June 2010 04:31
Posted To: Professional Standards
Conversation: Complaint received via the Humberside Police website Re: QU 134/10/SMT/LTW
Subject: Complaint received via the Humberside Police website Re: QU 134/10/SMT/LTW

Dear Sir/Madam

I have received a letter dated 11th June 2010 with the following reference:

Crime Management branch/Operations Branch QU 134/10/SMT/LTW

The letter states that a Chief Inspector Xxxxx has requested I make contact with him. I have had no such request and have no contact details for him. Do you have an email address that you could let me have.

I need to refer this complaint to the IPCC, but before I would like to know why Chief Inspector Xxxxx requires my contact.

Regards, N. Gilliatt

From: Neil
Date: 02 July 2010 15:18
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject: Appeal to IPCC - 2010/010402

Dear Xxxxxx

Re: Case reference number: 2010/010402

I would like to make an appeal about the way my complaint was handled at the Professional Standards Department of the Humberside Police.

I realise I have until 9th July 2010 to do this. I'm aware that I must submit a form of appeal, either online or by post. I will do this today online.

Please would you confirm receipt of this email.

Regards, Neil.

From: enquiries@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Date: 02 July 2010 15:18
To: Neil
Subject: Acknowledgement of appeal ENQ25035E

Dear Neil Gilliatt

Thank you for submitting your appeal online.

Your appeal will be allocated to a Casework Manager, who will contact you in due course.

If you have any queries please contact us on 08453 000 000.

Regards,

Enquiries
Independent Police Complaints Commission

From: Neil
Date: 03 July 2010 12:45
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject:

Dear Xxxxxxx

Re: Case reference number: 2010/010402

Just updating you with the latest concerning my complaint relating the above ref:

I have submitted online, the following forms yesterday (2nd July 2010)

1. Appealing against a complaint not being recorded - My ref: ENQ25033E

2. Appealing against the police investigation into your complaint - My ref: ENQ25035E

Though I'm concerned that I don't have any record as to the contents, all I have is the reference numbers I've supplied above. Is there any chance that all correspondence relating to my case is collated and not all treat as individual matters?

I have also included the following information that is relevant to my complaint on the Parliament.co.uk Website:

QUOTE

Crime: Fraud

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

UNQUOTE

Regards, Neil

From: enquiries@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Date: 05 July 2010 10:17
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject: Thank you for your email.

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you for your email.

We have received your appeal and it has been forwarded to the correct casework department.

A casework manager will contact you shortly to acknowledge receipt and inform you of what will happen next.

If you have any queries please contact us on 08457 002 002

Kind regards

Adi on behalf of Customer Service
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

www.ipcc.gov.uk

Independent Police Complaints Commission
www.ipcc.gov.uk

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

26th August 2010

Dear Mr Gilliatt

This letter is about your appeal against Humberside Police which we received on 2nd July 2010

Before outlining our decision I should explain that our role In the appeal process is not to investigate your complaint but to review:

• whether or not the Humberside Police is the right police force to consider your complaint; and if so,

• whether or not they should have recorded it as a complaint about the way their staff have behaved.

If they have not yet provided you with a recording decision we can direct the force to provide you with a recording decision.

After considering all the information available I have now made a decision about the appeal. I HAVE NOT upheld your appeal. The reasons for this decision are set out in the attached report.

There is no appeal right against the assessment of your appeal. If you have any questions or need more information about the appeal decision please contact me.

Please note that IPCC casework decisions are final. Any decisions made by the Commission can only be overturned by the Courts through the Judicial Review process. If you are seeking to reverse a case decision I would advise that you should seek your own legal advice if you intend to pursue this course of action.

If you are not happy with the service you have received from the I PCC or have any expression of dissatisfaction, you can make your complaint to the IPCC Internal Investigations Unit who will respond to your complaint accordingly.

Please also find enclosed a questionnaire asking for your views on making an appeal to the IPCC and a pre-paid envelope for your response. The IPCC is keen to seek feedback from members of the public who have had dealings with the organisation. We would encourage you to complete this form as it helps us improve our systems and processes in the future. The questionnaire is anonymous and will be treated in confidence.

Please be aware that only your completed feedback form should be included in the pre-paid envelope and no further correspondence relating to your case should be sent to this address.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxx Xxxxx
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

IPCC Assessment of Failure To Notify Or Record A Complaint Appeal

DETAILS OF APPEAL

IPCC Reference: 2010/010402
Name of complainant: Mr Neil Gilliatt
Name of solicitor/agent (if any):
Name of force: Humberside Police
Date of complaint: 8.6.10
Date of force decision: 11.6.10
Date appeal received: 2.7.10
Casework Manager: Xxxxx Xxxx

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. The complaint:
- 1. Humberside Police did not investigate Mr Gilliatt's report of a crime and misled Mr Gilliatt into thinking this would be investigated.

2. The appeal (grounds given etc):

Mr Gilliatt has submitted 2 appeal forms. The complaint listed above was never investigated by the force, therefore the form to appeal against the investigation into a complaint was unnecessary. The letters which have gone out to Mr Gilliatt from the IPCC may have confused matters further. There is only one appeal right in relation to Mr Gilliatt's complaint, and that is in relation to the recording of his complaint as a Direction and Control matter rather than a complaint of police misconduct. The IPCC has considered the points raised from both appeal forms, and those relevant are:

- The force have recorded the matter as Direction and Control in order to prevent the IPCC from investigating.

- Mr Gilliatt disputes Cl Tipple's decision not to investigate the crime and regards fraud as a serious offence.

APPEAL FINDINGS

1. Did the force/authority fail to make a decision?

No.

The force made a decision as to whether or not the complaint should be recorded within a reasonable timeframe.

Summary Appeal Assessment

Not Upheld

2. Did the force/authority fail to notify the appropriate authority?

No.

Humberside Police is the appropriate authority in relation to Mr Gilliatt's complaint.

Summary Appeal Assessment

Not Upheld

3. Should the matter/s raised have been recorded as a complaint?

The first part of Mr Gilliatt's complaint, that the alleged crime was not investigated does fall under Direction and Control and the force have made the correct decision in this respect. This relates to force policy and not police misconduct.

The latter part of the complaint with regards to Mr Gilliatt being misled could be construed as being a complaint of police misconduct. However, Mr Gilliatt claims to have been misled by the following sentence on a letter from the force: 'However, if you have further evidence that a crime has occurred or wish to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate to contact me .... .'. This is a standardised letter and it is unreasonable to assume that the person sending the letter has deliberately misled Mr Gilliatt into believing that his 'crime' will be investigated. Rather that the same letter is used in all cases where no evidence of a crime exists.

Based upon the discussions above, the IPCC will not be upholding this appeal.

Summary Appeal Assessment

Not Upheld

4. Are there any points raised by the complainant outside what the IPCC can consider?

Yes.

The following points are taken from the appeal form submitted in error. Unfortunately Mr Gilliatt has no right of appeal against the action proposed, whether the officer has a case to answer or whether the case should have been referred to the CPS. This is because the force never investigated Mr Gilliatt's complaint. Mr Gilliatt only has a right of appeal as to whether the complaint should have been recorded as a misconduct matter which is covered in the assessment above.

- There was no proposed action resulting from the police investigation into my complaint

- No mention was made to the officer I complained about in my reply

- I disagree with the decision the police have made not to refer the investigation of my complaint to the CPS because of Breached of data Protection Act 1998, Distress for rent rules 1988, regulation 45 SI 1992/613 of he Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and commits an offence under Sections 2 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

On the basis of this assessment I have decided not to uphold the appeal.

ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE/AUTHORITY

No further action required on complaint

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

26th August 2010

Dear Mr Gilliatt

This letter is about your appeal against Humberside Police, which we received on 2nd July 2010.

After considering all of the information that you gave us I have concluded that you do not have the right to appeal in relation to your complaint. I cannot consider your appeal further. This is because you submitted 2 appeals around the same time relating to the same complaint. As this complaint was not recorded by the force and therefore not investigated, you do not have the right to appeal against an investigation into your complaints. You also submitted an appeal against the non-recording of your complaint. This appeal is valid and was given the reference number 2010/010402 by the IPCC. Along with this letter, please find enclosed the decision for that appeal.

The decision we make about your appeal is final. Any decisions made by the Commission can only be overturned by the Courts through the Judicial Review process. I would advise you to seek your own legal advice if you intend to pursue this course of action

If you have any questions or want further clarification, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxxx Xxxxx
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: Neil
Date: 15 September 2010 14:06
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject: Your Ref: 2010/010402

Dear Becky

I have sent today a document to the IPCC Appeals feedback survey, of which contains the following:

Your Ref: 2010/010402

15/09/2010

Dear Sir/Madam

I have been invited to anonymously fill out a questionnaire asking for my views on making an appeal to the IPCC, which I’m informed, will be treated in confidence.

Firstly I would prefer not to hide behind anonymity, and secondly I would welcome that my views are made openly available. Further to this I can not believe, in light of the abysmal way my appeal has been dealt with that I have been sent an appeals feedback form. Insulting though your request is, I am prepared to give you feedback, though not via your standard form, whose little boxes are presumably scanned by some computer system. And for that reason, I suspect that this written version will probably not get processed.

The need for your pettiness which kicks off your report, dealing with what you call my “unnecessary” complaint, leading to letters that “may have confused matters further” may not have been necessary if organisations like the IPCC were not so inflexible and obsessed with eliminating human intervention in the attempt to automate the appeals procedure. This automated approach to the complaints system, has no doubt been brought about by ambitious I.T project engineers and because of the sheer volume of complaints which hinders the process and causes an inferior service. My case is one example that fails due to the rigid system that attempts to put you into one or another appeals category. The IPCC, in considering the points raised in both appeal forms, I think proves this.

What seems obvious to me is how your organisation, along with all the other ‘so called’ independent watchdogs, operates. Your reports must be prepared in reverse, i.e. you write down the closing statement, in the case of the IPCC that is “ON THE BASIS OF THIS ASSESSMENT I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL”, and then work starts in concocting the remaining document. Although there is often a token acknowledgement somewhere in the report, that the complaint has a trace of validity, giving the impression that the organisation is not biased in the favour of the authority concerned. But this acknowledgement is soon countered, by some excuse for why the organisation will not uphold the complaint, be it out of their jurisdiction or some other.

What is also farcical about the way these reports are presented is the simple format they take. No doubt there is a template, where the blanks are filled in, often making sense only to the computer that devised them. Complainant’s evidence is conveniently selected or ignored at the organisation’s discretion, and only that which the casework manager chooses will be address.

An example of this simplified and selective consideration of the complaint’s contents can be found in item 3 of your appeal findings. You managed to reduce my claim (that I had been misled into believing that the crime would be investigated) to one sentence, that being “However, if you have further evidence that a crime has occurred or wish to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me …..” which you referred to as a “standardised letter”. I severely question your judgment with regards your comments relating to the “standardised letter”, especially where you say “that the same letter is used in all cases where no evidence of a crime exists”.

Assuming you read the contents of my appeal, you would have noticed that this was only one of many instances where I was fobbed off with the excuse that more evidence was required.

The following account which was supplied to you in my appeal, gives a more accurate picture as to why I feel I was misled by Humberside Police:

“
I received a letter dated 19/05/09 (enclosed) from Detective Inspector Paul Welton explaining that “at this stage we will not be starting a criminal investigation.” Though implying that if further evidence was found he may consider investigating the matter.

Therefore I made further enquiries with the council into how their so called reputable bailiffs had come by the figure they were demanding. Obtaining information through subject access requests etc, while keeping Det. Insp. Welton informed by email (enclosed).

I received another letter DATED 19/05/09 (enclosed). I assume the date on this letter was a typing error and would suggest the date was more likely to be around the end of June. The letter explained that the matter originated from an unpaid Council Tax bill which was clearly not an issue for the Police, and that his “recommendation is that at this stage Humberside police do not investigate this matter.”

On this occasion the excuse not to investigate the matter was attributed to guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers issued 6th September 2004, which are used to make decisions on whether the Police should investigate fraud.

However, he also explained that “If on conclusion of the civil dispute there is new evidence of criminal activity I will review my position.”

I began the Council’s formal complaints procedure In July-09 and on the 21st December I received the concluding response to the 4th stage of the procedure. And due to the unsatisfactory outcome to the complaint, I then appealed to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Although my complaints with the Local Authority and the L.G.O. were unsatisfactory and clearly a cover-up, the process had exposed and confirmed attempts of fraud and clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I sent a letter dated 26/04/2010 (enclosed) to Det. Insp. Welton, summarising the events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales acted negligently or unlawfully. I also provided clear references to breaches of the Data Protection Act, Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 and non compliance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

You will no doubt appreciate my disappointment, considering the efforts I had gone to, in learning for a third time that a decision had been made not to investigate the matter. On this occasion the “Home Office circular 47/2004”, (which provides the Home Office guidance on where priority should be given by the police) was used as the excuse not to investigate.

I looked at a website with information regarding the "Home Office circular 47/2004" and straight away saw the following:

"Nothing in these guidelines should be taken as preventing the police from investigating any case that they consider it appropriate to investigate."

I think it is fair to say that an investigation of this nature i.e. into a Local Authority and their contracted bailiff company, was never going to happen from the outset when my first letter went missing and was never distributed to the relevant department.

If the Police department had been straight with me from the start i.e. admitted that an investigation would never take place, I could have considered another course of action. Instead, due to misleading responses from the Police, I have spent literally months battling with one organisation after another obtaining the evidence requested of me and needed for a prosecution.
”

It appears to me from the above, that contrary to your view, there is no doubt that I had been misled. It’s clear that the Detective inspector had no intention, under any circumstances of investigating the bailiff’s attempt to defraud me, but for one reason or another couldn’t be straight with me. Instead he used as excuses ”guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers” on one occasion, and the "Home Office circular 47/2004” on another, or that “the matter originated from an unpaid Council Tax bill which was clearly not an issue for the Police”. Whatever the matter originated from is irrelevant, if what it led to was clearly a succession of attempts to defraud me by North East Lincolnshire Council and their bailiffs, Rossendales.

I fail to see how your statement in item 3 of your appeal findings has any relevance “the same letter is used in all cases where no evidence of a crime exists”, especially after I had supplied Detective Inspector Welton with details of unlawful practices carried out by Rossendales’ bailiffs, which included an illegal levy of a vehicle, several attempts of fraud and breaches of the Data protection act. The same details that were supplied to you in my appeal, I have included the main points in the following:

“
Although I have not had a satisfactory outcome to my complaints with the Local Authority or the LGO. The process has uncovered acts of fraud and illegality far exceeding what was first thought.

For your information to consider this case I will include as a preliminary a summary of events in which the NELC and/or Rossendales were negligent or criminal.

3 Alleged first visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on 15th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £24.50, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

“The National Standards for Enforcement Agents require that, on every visit which incurs a fee, the bailiff will leave a notice detailing the fees charged to date, including the one for that visit, and the fees which will be incurred if further action becomes necessary.”

4 Alleged second visit by call bailiff Russell James Hall of Rossendales Ltd. on 18th December 2008 incurring a fraudulent fee of £18, in which there was no evidence that a visit took place.

5 An illegal levy and fraudulent levy fee of £25 for the distraint of a vehicle by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009, in which I did not receive a notice of distress, had no knowledge about it and it was not my vehicle.

Ref: Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992

Summary of levy related events:

On the 5th March 2009 Mr. Ajoy Singh allegedly created a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory advising me that he had levied against a vehicle which was in the car park at the apartment complex where I live.

Fees I was charged by Rossendales were not itemised, until 27th May 2009 in response to a subject access request in which a levy fee was listed. (I knew nothing about the levy).

I was unaware that the bailiff had levied on a vehicle until 21st July 2009 when I was sent a copy of the document in response to a formal complaint about the conduct and application of fees by Rossendales.

There was no notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory handed to me or left with me on the 5th of March 2009, only an envelope I found by chance wedged outside the entrance door to the apartment block of my residence, in which was a demand headed bailiff removal and threatening to remove goods even in my absence. I believe Regulation 45 SI 1992/613 requires a bailiff to hand the debtor a copy of the regulation, a memo of the amount due and a copy of any agreement.

This vehicle is not owned by me. I do not know the owner of the vehicle and it would appear that the bailiff has randomly selected this car because it was parked close to my home, despite confirmation from the DVLA that Rossendales have access to driver/vehicle data on a next day basis. It is of my opinion that the bailiff’s action was solely to generate an extra fee and in illegally seizing this vehicle he applied a fraudulent £25 levy fee to my account.

6 A fraudulent fee of £60 added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009.

An invented figure of £60 was added to the demand on the 5th of March. Interestingly the copy of the supposed levy document I received in July did not include the £60 overcharge, whereas that received on the day was hand written on the demand. I suspect this would have some relevance to why I did not get to know about the levy?

7 A fraudulent van fee of £110 was added to my account by Ajoy Singh of Rossendales, now Philips Collection Services on 5th March 2009.

a. Because there were no goods listed to be removed (i.e. there was no legally required Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory).

b. The levy was illegal (item 5)

c. A van and levy fee can not be charged on the same day.

8 A £24.50 Schedule 5 head H fee was fraudulently added to my account.

The Schedule 5 head H fee is levy related and since the levy was illegal (item 5) this would make this charge fraudulent.
”

Considering the extent of the total disregard of the law by Rossendales, which is displayed in the above evidence I am of the opinion that the evidence supplied to the Police department is irrelevant, that is to say that the department will decide, whether or not a case will be investigated regardless of what evidence there is or what legislation has been breached. No doubt all accusations against local authorities will be dismissed as a matter of course. Particularly interesting is that of the Pakistan's cricket scandal currently ongoing, why would this attract Scotland Yard inquiring into what is effectively a game, while Police turn a blind eye, to an industry which is systematically defrauding millions of its citizens?

My experience in this appeals procedure has confirmed my suspicions that your organisation is completely pointless and a waste of tax payer’s money. When I say confirmed my suspicions, I was under no illusion that my complaint to the Humberside Police and later my appeal to the IPPC would be treated in any other way than it has, and that is to function as a cover for the authorities involved.

It is clear from the way your appeals system and the complaints procedure of the Police is set up that the majority of complaints will be diverted away from investigation or will not have an “appeal right”. The scope for complaints is so limited that many fall outside the rigid appeals categories, there’s obviously need for a complete review of your organisation, especially considering the amount of tax payer’s money, poured into this “so called” independent body which is in place to cover up for the Police, with the prosecution service, Police and IPCC all acting as a justice system which closes ranks to protect its own.

The police, Courts, independent watchdog organisations and local authorities must be living in a bubble if they don’t realise that these private bailiffs are systematically defrauding or attempting to defraud millions of tax payers. I don’t believe you are all ignorant of this practice, and so I can only assume that your organisations are just one huge corrupt back covering operation that decides who may flout the law with impunity. It is understandable that when an organisation is set up to make the Police force accountable, and so obviously does not, that there will be suspicions into what incentives are being given by the authorities to the organisations, to arrive at the desired outcome. When you consider the £billions that such organisations cost it can be concluded that the desired outcomes are in effect bought, but still worse are paid for with the tax payers’ money. It’s so obvious that the IPCC like other similar organisations have been set up to try and convince the public that the Police are accountable but we all know that this is a sham. The IPCC is an ineffective waste of tax payer’s money and should be disbanded and replaced with a truly independent organisation.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

I suspect that this feedback will not be processed and have attached as a document file the same letter, could you forward this to the IPCC internal Investigations unit as a complaint and to whoever else you think appropriate. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gilliatt

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

15th September 2010

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Your email dated 15th September 2010 has been received by the Internal Investigations Unit of the IPCC.

Your complaint against the IPCC has been recorded under the reference number 2898/30/93 and has been forwarded to our casework team in order to provide you with a response within twenty working days.

Yours sincerely,

X XXXXXX
Internal Investigations Officer Internal Investigations Unit

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

16th September 2010

Dear Mr Gilliatt

This is in response to your e-mail of 15th September 2010. You asked that the information contained within be sent to our Internal Investigations Unit. However, as your Casework Manager I am better able to answer some of the queries you raise.

I regret that have taken offence at the word unnecessary, this was not my intention. I can assure you that every appeal assessment is completed in the same way, first looking at the complaints, the evidence gathered, the findings of the force and then the appeal. It is not the case that I did not uphold your appeal on reading it and then completed my report to support this decision.

Unfortunately as your complaint was not recorded or investigated by the force, it means that only certain appeal rights apply to you. This is why the forms we use are set out in such a way. The appeal rights are set out by law and it is not the case that I have selected or ignored your evidence. In your case the only appeal rights you had was whether or not the force failed to make a decision, whether they were the appropriate authority to deal with the complaint and whether it ought to have been recorded. I considered each of these when making my decision.

As stated in my decision letter to you, the IPCC does not review or reconsider its decisions. Although I have read the information provided in your letter, this does not change my decision not to uphold your appeal. If you wish to challenge a decision then this can only be done through the Courts. If you wish to take this course of action then I suggest you seek legal advice.

Your comments regarding the format of our appeal forms and assessments has been feedback to our Policy team.

Xxxxx Xxxxx
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

From: Neil
Sent: 11 November 2010 13:48
To: Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Subject: Re: Your Ref: 2010/010402

Dear Xxxx

I have two letters, one from yourself dated 15th September 2010 and the other 15th September 2010 from the internal investigations officer. The internal investigations officer has recorded my complaint and it has been allocated a reference number (2898/30/93). It is apparent that my complaint has not been looked at and I would like that it is dealt with by the internal investigations officer.

Regards, Neil

ipcc
independent
police complaints commission
1st Floor, Oaklands House Washway Road Sale M33 6FS
Tel: 0161 2468500 Fax: 01619695659 Minicom: 020 7404 0431 Email:
[email address] Web: www.iPCc.gov.uk

Private & Confidential
Mr Neil Gilliatt
xx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx
South Humberside DN32000

12th November 2010

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Your email dated 11th November 2010 has been received by the Internal Investigations Unit of the IPCC.

Your complaint against the IPCC was recorded under the reference number 2898/30/93 and you were advised in my acknowledgement of the 15th September 2010 that a response would be forthcoming from the casework team.

Ms Xxxxx responded to you on the 16th September 2010, your complaint is therefore considered closed.

The Internal Investigations Unit deals with conduct complaints against IPCC staff it has no remit over complaints against the police nor can it overturn a final decision on a police complaint as this can only be done by Judicial Review and would advise you to seek independent legal advice should this be your intention.

Whilst I understand you remain dissatisfied at the outcome of your complaint and the appeals process as a whole your comments have been noted, however I regret I can be of no further assistance on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

X xxxxxx
Internal Investigations Officer Internal Investigations Unit

From: Neil
Sent: 15 November 2010 13:48
To: Xxxx Xxxx
Subject: Re: Your Ref: 2010/010402

I have just received a letter from the Internal Investigations Officer. As I expected, the response was a joke. I'd like you to know I was under no illusion that this process would prove to be anything other than a farce and a waste of time. I would also like you to know that I'm aware organisations such as the IPCC are a complete waste time and the existence of them constitutes theft of tax payers money.

It's my opinion the IPCC along with other useless quango's should be axed immediately.

Please forward this message to the Internal Investigations Officer, the chief executive or whoever.

From: Xxxxx xxxx
To: Neil
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: Your Ref: 2010/010402

Mr Gilliatt,

I have passed your comments along to our Internal Investigations Unit.

I must reiterate at this stage that the the decision on your appeal is final, the only way to challenge this decision is through the Courts. If you wish to pursue this course of action then I suggest you seek legal advice. This was explained to you in the decision letter which accompanied your appeal assessment.

Regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission

From: Neil
Date: 17 November 2010 13:28
To: x.x@ ipcc.gsi.gov. uk
Subject: Re: Your Ref: 2010/010402

As you so arrogantly stated "the only way to challenge this decision is through the courts".

I'm aware having gone through procedures including the court, that the whole system is corrupt.

Working for an organisation that drains countless millions of tax payers money, your suggestion to pointlessly waste everyone's time and money doesn't surprise me . Obviously coming from an organisation that leeches from the public this suggestion must be second nature.

Unless you can explain the need for the IPCC and similar so called independent watchdog organisations, other than being a sham to convince the public that various departments are accountable, I'd prefer that you don't communicate with me.