Appealing against the police Investigation into your complaint IPCC Use Only
This form can be completed online. Please visit www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/forms.aspx The IPCC must receive your appeal within 28 days of the date of the letter you have received from the police telling you about the outcome of the investigation. Completing the online form will speed up this process. Alternatively, please fill in and return this form as instructed at the bottom of this leaflet.
___________________________________________________ If there is anything which makes it difficult for you to use this service, for example if English is not your first language or you have a disability, please contact the IPCC using the contact details at the bottom of this leaflet. Alternatively, please use the space below to tell us how we might help to make things easier for you. N/A
Please give the name of the police force your complaint was about. Metropolitan Police Service
Please give the date of the letter you received from the police telling you the outcome of the investigation. 11 October 2012
___________________________________________________ Please tick the appropriate box: Mr X specify) …………………………………….
Mrs
First name: Declan
Surname: Heavey
.........................................................................
Miss
Ms
Other (please
…………………………………………………………….
Your address: 83 Priory Gardens London
Postcode: N6 5QU
Daytime telephone number:
Evening telephone number:
0779 284 3167
0779 284 3167
Email address: dheavey@gmail.com
___________________________________________________ Date you made your complaint:
IPCC or police reference number:
28 July 2012
IPCC reference: 2012/013066 Police reference: PC/04451/12 CRIS report: 2800668/12
Please give your reasons for appealing against the results of the investigation into your complaint. Please give as much information as possible, continuing on a separate sheet if necessary. The Metropolitan Police has not addressed my complaint in full. Also the Investigating Officer Detective Constable Tracie Lord from Haringey Borough Professional Standards Unit has not followed all relevant lines of enquiry. As such the investigation is not adequate. On 21 August 2012, my live-in landlady, Belinda McKenzie, signed an Undertaking to the Court (under Claim no. 2EC01766) not to harass me and my wife following her builder’s removal of the front door of our flat on 27 July 2012. Ms McKenzie wrote to the Court on 11 September 2012 (under Claim no. 2EC58592), stating in Part A at paragraph 8: “…I removed the interconnecting door that makes the flat self-contained, in order to signal to them that their tenancy was over, in my mind anyway. They immediately called the police who said I had a right to remove my own door....” However, DC Lord finds that: “On arrival the officers have established that your landlady has arranged for a builder to remove the front door which she stated, you had erected without her permission.” Such an allegation has no factual basis, as is clear from the aforementioned court papers. DC Lord continues: “I understand that it was explained to you by the officers who attended that disputes that relate to tenancy are a civil matter and Police would only attend to prevent a breach of the peace. As such no criminal offence had been committed and therefore no crime report was required.” DC Lord was writing in relation to the complaint that I made on 28 July 2012. In the circumstances of this complaint, a proportionate investigation should explore and determine whether the officers carried out their duties correctly, in accordance with relevant powers, policy or guidelines during their decision-making process. As such, in order for DC Lord to make an
informed assessment of the actions and decision taken by Patrol Sergeant YR Thornborrow, DC Lord should also have considered taking accounts from PS YR Thornborrow, PC Luckin and PC Kingham in respect of their rationale for deciding that no criminal offence had been committed and therefore no crime report was required. Their rationale has not been explored adequately and the findings rely heavily on DC Lord’s own assessment. In my complaint I assert that PS YR Thornborrow has prevented the investigation of an offence and that there has been a breach of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I consider that this belief is central to my complaint and hence in order for my complaint to be adequately resolved this matter should have been addressed by the complaint investigation. However, the investigation outcome letter does not address this issue raised in the complaint. DC Lord has given her own assessment of what constitutes a criminal offence, but without reference to any statutory provisions or police guidelines or policy. It is therefore not clear in what context the decision has been made. Furthermore, the investigation outcome letter does not adequately assess the action of the officers with reference to relevant crime reporting processes/guidelines, such as Home Office Counting Rules. The investigation outcome letter possibly makes reference to policy (I refer to the wording “…in this case no policy and procedure has been broken”) but does not refer to evidence to support this. The Metropolitan Police has not demonstrated that the findings set out in the investigation outcome letter are supported by the evidence nor supported the conclusions with an adequate rationale. The investigation is therefore not proportionate and further enquiries need to be undertaken before the investigation can be considered complete.
Do you feel you were not given enough information about what the investigation into your complaint found or the action the police plan to take following their investigation? If so, please give your reasons. Yes. DC Lord’s letter does not provide adequate information about the complaint investigation, for the reasons discussed above.
Do you disagree with the findings of the police investigation into your complaint? If so, please give your reasons. Yes. DC Lord’s findings are not appropriate/proportionate to my complaint, for the reasons discussed above.
Do you disagree with the proposed action resulting from the police investigation into your complaint? If so, please give your reasons. Yes. DC Lord does not propose any action to be taken resulting from her investigation into my complaint.
If you made your complaint after 1 December 2008, do you disagree with the decision that the police have made about whether an officer you complained about has a case to answer? If so, please give your reasons.
Yes. PS YR Thornborrow has prevented the investigation of an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
If you have any evidence or information to support your complaint, for example photos or letters, please list below. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Ms McKenzie’s Undertaking dated 21 August 2012 under Claim no. 2EC01766. Ms McKenzie’s statement dated 11 September under Claim no. 2EC58592. Photographs of the incident that led to me making a complaint. Police investigation outcome letter dated 11 October 2012.
Please note that the information you provide relating to an appeal will be passed to the police force involved.
___________________________________________________ Signature of the person making this appeal:
Date:
Declan Heavey
08/11/2012
The IPCC, like all public bodies, is obliged to record the ethnicity of people using its service. Being able to identify the ethnicity of complainants helps us to check we are reaching all sections of society. Please describe your ethnicity using the boxes below.
WHITE White British X White Irish Any other White background
MIXED White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other mixed background
ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Any other Asian background
BLACK OR BLACK BRITISH Caribbean African Any other Black background
OTHER ETHNIC GROUP
OTHER
___________________________________________________ Where to send this form
Please return the completed form by post, fax or email to: IPCC, PO BOX 473, Sale M33 0BW. Fax: 020 7166 3306 Email address: NorthCasework@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Additional notes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………. …………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………