Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigation, Upheld, Leicestershire Police

I have been contacted by a Rutland resident who has complained about Leicestershire Police, mainly Oakham Police. The member of public reported a fraud. They also reported harassment by Cllr Charles Haworth and others. The member the of the public says both complaints were connected. Oakham Police Sgt Shellard discriminated against the complainant, Oakham Police refused to investigate the complaints.

I have been sent the damming IPCC report shown below.

One year on from the date of the findings Leicestershire Police have failed to comply with the IPCC and let the situation go from bad to worse.

The Rutland Times refused to publish these findings



Dear ###########

This letter is about your appeal against Leicestershire Constabulary, which we received on 15 February 2013.

The IPCC’s role in the appeal process is to review the investigation into your complaint, not to re-investigate your complaint.  

Our decision on your appeal is governed by paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. I have looked at the following issues in concluding your appeal:  

whether the findings of the investigation need to be reconsidered  whether the outcomes, for example in relation to whether any disciplinary or other actions should be taken, are appropriate  whether the matter should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)  whether you received adequate information about the findings of the investigation
 
I have reviewed your complaint form dated 05 January 2013.

I have also considered your appeal form dated 15 February 2013, the investigation outcome report completed by the Investigating Officer (IO), Police Sergeant (undated) and the related evidence referred to within the outcome report.  

The decisions I have reached in relation to your appeal are outlined below:

1. Are the findings of the appropriate authority (chief officer or local policing body) investigation appropriate/ proportionate to the complaint?

No. 

 2
I consider that the Leicestershire Constabulary has not addressed your complaint. As such the investigation is not adequate.

The IO is required to state his opinion about whether the people you complained about has a case to answer. The IO has not reached a conclusion on each complaint.  

The IO has not followed all relevant lines of enquiry. The IO has not addressed nor investigated the allegation that the force has discriminated against you. The force has not reviewed whether you have been treated differently to M# ####### in investigating your report of a potential fraud. Further, the force has not established whether Police Constable (PC) Lloyd and PC Cockerill have adhered to the National Crime Recording Standards.

In relation to your criminal report not being investigated, the IPCC is unable to make a decision on this aspect of the allegation as the force has provided insufficient rationale or evidence to support their decision.
The investigation is therefore not proportionate and the above enquires need to be undertaken before the investigation is considered to be complete.  

For the reasons given above, I consider that the findings of the police complaint investigation are not appropriate. This aspect of the appeal is upheld.

2. Is the decision that the appropriate authority   has made about whether an officer has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or if any person’s performance is unsatisfactory, appropriate?
This aspect of the appeal has not been reviewed as further investigation is required.
 
3. Are the appropriate authority’s proposed actions following the investigation adequate?
This aspect of the appeal has not been reviewed as further investigation is required.

4. Has the investigation been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? If not, is this decision appropriate?
The report has not been referred to the CPS. I consider this decision to be appropriate as the report and the underlying evidence does not indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed.  

5. Have you been provided with adequate information following the investigation of your complaint?

No.

3
The IO’s report does not provide adequate information about the complaint investigation.
While various officers have commented that the potential offence is a civil matter, there is no explanation of why this is. The officers have stated that it is civil (and quoted the CPS guidelines) to yourself and within the crime report, however have not provided their rationale as to why this does not adhere to the CPS guidelines.

This aspect of the appeal is upheld.

6. Have you raised any points that are outside what the IPCC can consider?
You raised the following additional points, which are not relevant in determining the outcome of your appeal because:

That PS Shellard has discriminated against you by not advising you of the outcome of a crime as per the Victim’s Code. This is not a part of the recorded complaint and as such is outside the remit of the IPCC in this appeal. Should you wish to pursue the matter you should contact the force directly.

After considering all the information available I have now made a decision about your appeal. I have upheld your appeal in respect of suitable findings and adequate information.

ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE / AUTHORITY
Leicestershire Constabulary are to investigate the following aspects of the complaint:
That the force has discriminated against you Whether the officers’ adhered to the National Crime Recording Standards

The IO is required to provide the information listed in point 5, shown above.
You should be supplied with a further investigation report and right of appeal.  
The Leicestershire Constabulary will contact you about the actions listed above. Please contact the police directly if you do not hear from them within 28 days.

You are not able to appeal against the assessment of your appeal. If you have any questions or need more information about the appeal decision please contact me using the details shown at the end of this letter.

4
We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of customer service, but are aware that sometimes things may go wrong. If you are unhappy or dissatisfied with the level of service you have received from the IPCC, please let us know and we will do our best to put things right. We will listen to you and endeavour to resolve issues quickly and at the right level.  

Our website includes a questionnaire about your views on making an appeal to the IPCC.  

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/appeals_survey.aspx

Your response will help us to improve our systems and processes. The questionnaire is anonymous and will be treated in confidence. Your reference number is ######

Yours sincerely

Lisa Parrin-Lester Casework Manager Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

IPCC contact: Lisa Parrin-Lester Casework Manager

Tel: 02920 245438 E-mail: lisa.parrin-lester@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk   

Body Power Oakham Fitness Centre, Oakham Town Council, Grant Thornton, Auditor, Investigation

This financial year Oakham Town Council spent a quarter of its Council Tax  income setting up friends or associate in business. It spent a total of £64,000 of local residents money on this private enterprise.
The council has let the  gym for less than the market value and over the six years of the lease will make
a loss.

At no time did any councillor declare they knew any of the directors  of Body Power  Fitness  Centre.
This included the Mayor  Councillor Alf Dewis, who would come into contact with  one  of the directors, through his various committee roles.

I have asked  Leicestershire Police to look into to this and they have ignored me twice.

I have written  to my MP  Alan Duncan and he has ignored me regarding this matter.

I spoke to Geoff Pook at Rutland County Council, he gave me the wrong advice, he said
I should raise the issue of  value for money.

I contacted the councils auditor and carefully explained my concerns.

I am pleased to say they have responded and will be considering those concerns

The reply from the Auditor mentions the tendering process, Oakham Town Council decided not
to tender.

It is my view Oakham Town Council is corrupt and until the local residents get over their serious
case of apathy and take control of this council, which is currently run by 8 unelected people and a
over paid Clerk, incidents like this will continue to be repeated.

The Council has reached the point of the year where it will be considering  grant applications  where it gives out public money to the  same old groups often made up of members of the old guard.

lets hope this year there wont be any applications from dodgy councillors, like the one currently  being
investigated by Leicester Police Economic Crime Unit.

Lets hope some real community groups come forward this year seeking support.






Dear Mr Brookes



Thank you for your e mail to the Grant Thornton website in December 2012 which has been forwarded to me. I apologise for the delay in responding to you.



Grant Thornton LLP are the appointed external auditors for all small councils in Rutland. I am the senior manager with responsibility for all those small councils including Oakham Town Council (the council).



You have raised concerns over the council’s spending on a gym which is currently let to a private company. You believe the money spent by the council in letting the gym does not represent value for money. You have also raised concerns over the council’s tendering processes and the way it awards contracts. You have not made a formal objection to the accounts of Oakham Town Council.



I attach a  copy of the Audit Commission publication “Council accounts: a guide to your rights.” I strongly recommend that you read the leaflet and consider its contents.



As Oakham Town Council’s income and expenditure is less than £6,500,000 it is subject to a limited assurance audit. Currently value for money assessments are not part of the limited assurance regime. As external auditors we conduct a limited assurance audit based on the information contained in the council’s annual return. Therefore we will not be undertaking any value for money work in relation to Oakham Town Council.



However as appointed auditors we have a duty to consider, during the course of our audit, any matters brought to our attention. You have raised concerns over the legality of the council’s expenditure in relation to the letting of the gym and other issues around the tending processes of the council, and the awarding of contracts.



Auditors must apply a balanced and proportionate approach in determining the time and resources to be spent on dealing with matters that come to their attention.



We will consider:



·    the significance of the subject matter;

·    whether there is a wider public interest in the issues raised;

·    whether the substance of the matter has previously been considered by the body’s auditor;

·    the costs of dealing with the matter, bearing in mind that these fall directly on the taxpayer; and

·    in the case of objections, the rights of both those subject to the objection and the objector.



We consider that the issues you have raised indicate that we should undertake some additional work to ensure that the Council is acting in accordance with its statutory powers. We will therefore make some enquiries about the council’s spending on the gym and the council’s tendering processes. We do not intend to name you as the source of our information, that said we are unable to guarantee you anonymity throughout the audit process.



Depending on the outcome of our initial enquiries of the council it may become necessary to undertake further work. Any further work required to address issues that have arisen from any source falls outside the remit of the standard audit and auditors are entitled to charge additional fees in relation to that work.