Monthly Archives: May 2013

Criminal damage aka “wear and tear”

Smashed window

When I telephoned the MPS Lewisham Victim Focus dept to find out what was happening regarding this incident I was told it had been closed as wear and tear.

I asked if they could email this information to me and they did, below is an extract from their email.

By the time of this incident I had already reported around 60 (sixty) previous incidents over the previous 22 months.

Around six weeks after this incident – which was reported by the SNT, as at the time I was forced out of my home following Lewisham police maliciously arresting/charging me –

and two days after the Trial at which I had to represent myself and the Trial was stopped and the District Judge ruled I had “No case to answer“…

.

– the SNT made a referral to a mental health team claiming I was “mentally ill” and suffering “delusions” incidents were happening!

 

“Dear Ms XXXXX
Once a supervisor read the report he felt there was nothing to suggest this was criminal damage and it could just be wear and tear, therefore unless any other information comes to light, this case was to be closed. …
I hope I have answered all your questions.
Regards
XXX

XXXXXXXXXX
Victim Community Support Officer XXXXPL
Victim Focus Unit
Lewisham Police Station
43 Lewisham High Street
Lewisham
SE13 5JZ
ÉMetline 28391
ÉPhone 0208-284-8391″

I had included regarding this incident in my complaint to the MPS, the PS from the Professional Standards dept who was supposed to be investigating my complaint – but who refused to meet with me to discuss my complaint and see my evidence – found no fault at all with Lewisham police putting what was clearly criminal damage as “wear and tear”.

 

Advertisements

MPS-Complaints and Cover-Ups

The IPCC recently upheld my Appeal re the Metropolitan Police Service did not record my complaint of January 2013, the IPCC instructed MPS to record it.

Yesterday I received an email from the MPS asking me to send them all my evidence to support my complaint – a massive task, there is so much of it – and stating that –

“There is no requirement for me to meet with you and I believe that this would not be appropriate in the circumstances.

The email does not explain WHY it “would not be appropriate in the circumstances” to meet with me to view and discuss my evidence nor what are those “circumstances”.

It seems to me crystal clear, then, that without any contact with me at all and without seeing any of my evidence, the investigator – despite being in the Lewisham ‘Professionalism Unit’ –  has already formed a very negative, hostile opinion of me…

and that opinion is preventing him from objectively, properly and fairly investigating my complaint, which includes serious issues of MPS Lewisham officers disregarding evidence, failing to adhere to MPS standards and making false reports on the police computer.

Is this really what passes as “professionalism” in the Metropolitan Police Service?

Apparently so, because this is now the THIRD time the MPS has refused to meet with me to discuss a complaint and discuss my evidence – this is so obviously unfair, unreasonable and biased, clearly something is very wrong with how I am being treated, and the MPS complaints system.

Had my first complaint been fairly and properly investigated, Lewisham MPS could not have continued treating me as they were, and so I would not have been compelled to make any further complaints….

nor start this blog to show the injustice and evidence.

More details about the unfair, unreasonable and biased way my complaints have been dealt with will be posted soon, with supporting documents as evidence, but briefly –

In October 2011 I made a complaint about the MPS Lewisham/SNT failures to deal with reports of incidents since first reported December 2009, police colluding with Lewisham Council to protect the perpetrators* of incidents, and maliciously arresting/prosecuting me.

* Mainly, a dysfunctional and criminal family, multiple agencies involved with them and “well known to the police” (to quote an SNT officer in the Court).

The MPS investigator, a Sergeant from the MPS Professional Standards Dept, refused to meet with me to discuss my complaint and see my evidence, this despite my repeated requests for her to do so.

I was blamed for her not meeting with me but it was blatantly unfair, not to mention entirely against the IPCC Statutory guidelines…

on one occasion – which was a few days after the very stressful Trial at which the District Judge ruled I had “No case to answer”, and that stress on top of all the stress since incidents started around June 2009, etc –  I had not telephoned her on the day I had said I would, to arrange to meet.  I had not even missed a meeting, just one telephone call.

Without trying to contact me to find out why I had not called, the very next working day she sent a letter saying she was sorry I was unable to give a venue and she had done most of her investigation and felt she could finish it without meeting with me.  When I received her letter I telephoned and explained why I had not been able to call and said I did want to meet with her and show her my evidence – but she just refused.

This officer had met with those I had complained about – and even with Lewisham Council! – but then refused to meet with me, the complainant, to discuss and see my evidence.

Unsurprisingly then, this officer’s  ‘investigation’ fully exonerated the police and her report was full of false information and the officers’ lies, and she referred to an absolutely crucial point which at the very least fully supported, if not actually proved, the arrest/prosecution were malicious, but she completely failed to draw the blatantly obvious conclusion.

When I Appealed to the IPCC explaining all this they did not uphold my Appeal and said I had not co-operated with the investigator – yes, because on one occasion I had not telephoned on the day I said I would the IPCC deemed I had not co-operated!

Not only am I certain any reasonable person would agree that is completely unreasonable and unfair, it was also against the IPCC’s own Statutory Guidance!   http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Documents/statutoryguidance/2010_statutory_guidance_english.pdf

As my serious complaint had not been properly and fairly investigated, in order to try to achieve this I made a complaint against the investigator for refusing to meet with me and see my evidence, the MPS refused to record it saying they did not have to, and the IPCC did not uphold my Appeal even though my complaint was about her conduct, I am not sure but I gather as complaint was re conduct should have been recorded.

As if all this was not stressful and upsetting enough, during this time it had transpired that two days after the Trial – at which FIVE police from the Safer Neighbourhood Team were to appear as prosecution witnesses against me (only three did though, because the Trial was stopped), I had had to represent myself,  and the District Judge ruled I had “No case to answer” because of the police ‘inconsistencies’ and ‘conflicting evidence’  – the self-same Safer Neighbourhood Team had made a referral to a mental health team about me falsely claiming I was “mentally ill” and suffering “delusions” incidents were happening.

(Notice they didn’t refer themselves for their “delusions” as shown by their “inconsistencies” and “conflicting evidence” about what happened !)

Not only is there lots of evidence incidents were really happening but the SNT referral was made around six weeks after my front window was smashed…which was reported by the same SNT so clearly NOT a “delusion”…but, ludicrously, the incident was closed as “wear and tear”.

Having obtained (via the Data Protection Act) a copy of that referral I was compelled to make a complaint to correct the malicious, false and damaging claims against me.

I asked for this to be investigated off-borough but request was refused – and lo-and-behold the officer who ‘investigated’ my complaint was the Inspector for the very SNT I was complaining about!

Despite it had been made very clear that I wanted to meet with the investigator to show them my evidence, the Inspector did his ‘investigation’ without contacting me at all – so again this was unfair, unreasonable and biased, I am sure no reasonable person would think it fair to meet with those complained about but not meet with the complainant and see their evidence.

Of course the Inspector’s entirely biased ‘investigation’ completely exonerated the police.  The IPCC refused my Appeal even though the ‘investigation’ was obviously unfair and biased and against their own Statutory Guidance.

These refusals to fairly and properly investigate my complaints enabled MPS Lewisham to continue to refuse to properly deal with my reports of (the further) incidents..and the incidents continued.  

Back in September 2010 I had made a complaint to Lewisham Council about the failures to deal properly with my reports of incidents and the way I was being treated eg not replying, never keeping me informed. This had then gone to the Local Government Ombudsman end-January 2011 but a Final Decision was not made until December 2012.

The LGO – who did discuss my complaint with me and saw much of my evidence for which I am extremely grateful  – found I had been caused “serious injustice” by the faults and failures of Lewisham Council, including all the failures to gather available evidence, including evidence from neighbours also reporting incidents.

As the Metropolitan Police Service were supposed to work closely with Lewisham Council (‘Safer Lewisham Partnership’) regarding ASB and reports of incidents, the LGO finding of “serious injustice” by one of the ‘Partnership’ was obviously very relevant and applicable to the police too, at the very least it meant proper and fair investigation was warranted.

With this independent confirmation of failures to properly deal with my reports of incidents and how I had been treated, I asked my MP – who around nine months previously had written to me stating she would not make any more reply re my “allegations” of anti-social behaviour – to write to the MPS Commissioner.

I provided her with the LGO Recommendations and Final Decision, details of the history and number of incidents, the refusals of the complaint investigators to meet with me, and that the situation continued so a new complaint about the ongoing failures, and she did write to Commissioner Hogan-Howe.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service was apparently completely UNconcerned that a Member of Parliament was writing to him about his officers’ failures to deal with ASB, this despite the supporting independent findings of the LGO, the high-media profile of ASB, the high number of incidents I had suffered and long period of time they had been going on and were still ongoing, and the refusals to properly and fairly investigate complaints about very serious issues of officers’ conduct.

I subsequently received a letter – which was wrongly addressed to a house along the road! – from the ‘Directorate of Professional Standards’, which stated my complaint would not be recorded because it was “repetitious” and “an abuse of the complaints system”.

I then Appealed to the IPCC pointing out my new complaint covered a different period from the previous complaints, raised new issues, I had email and audio evidence, and I referred to the ‘MPS Misconduct Investigation Guide’  –

2.45.4 Repetitious Complaints.

For a complaint to be regarded as repetitious it must be substantially the same as a previous complaint; there must be no fresh allegations and no fresh evidence. The previous complaint must also have been dealt with properly.”

I feel it is reasonable to expect the Directorate of Professional Services to be aware of the definition of a repetitious complaint but, from the refusal to record, it seems that is not the case.

As stated at the beginning of this post the IPCC upheld my Appeal and told the MPS to record my complaint.  Details of what happens regarding this  complaint will be posted with the ‘diary’ tag.