E-mail to the Ipcc, 28/2.

Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
28 February 2008
19:13
Subject
Re: Your Complaint To IPCC
From
Erik Ribsskog
To
Peter Crouch
Sent
28 February 2008 19:11

Hi,

thank you very much for your answer!

Like I exlained earlier, I've lost a bit of confidence in the Merseyside Police, due
to the phoney e-mail addresses etc., so I don't think theres any point in me
going to any more meetings with them etc.
I'll just wait untill they're finished, and then I'll appeal to the Ipcc, for the Ipcc,
to have a look at the incidents collected.

Like I informed the Ipcc about in one of the former e-mail, which you are answering
me on now, I recieved a letter from the Merseyside Police, from 3/12, last year,
from an Inspector on the Complaints Investigation Bureau.

It says in the letter, that they want an answer, within 21 days from 3/12.

Then they were going to inform the Ipcc, that 'the need for further investigation
of your complaint be discontinued because of lack of co-operation'.

So I reackon I'll eighter hear from you, the Ipcc, or the Force then, once the Force
have finished with their enquieries.

And then I'll contact the Ipcc, when I've got confirmation from the Force or the Ipcc,
that the investigation from the Force have been discontinued.

Hope this is alright!

Yours sincerely,
Erik Ribsskog



On 2/28/08, Peter Crouch <peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Mr Ribsskog,

I am writing in reference to your e-mail of 3rd January 2008 marked for
the attention of Douglas Cleaver. As the line manager for Sarah Brown
and previously the line manager for Joanne Fitzgerald, he has asked me
to respond to the concerns that you raise.

Firstly please accept my sincere apologies for the prolonged delay in
contacting you.

The first issue that you raised concerned an e-mail that you sent to my
colleague Joanne Fitzgerald on 10th November 2007, in which you
expressed a lack of confidence in the Police, following a meeting with
Walton Lane Police Station on 8th November 2007. You were informed by Ms
Fitzgerald that she had forwarded the e-mail to Michael Gibbs, the IPCC
Casework Manager who had been dealing with an Appeal that you had
submitted. Your concern appears to be a lack of response from Mr Gibbs.
Having looked into the matter I can see that Ms Fitzgerald asked Mr
Gibbs to consider whether the e-mail you had sent was part of the
previous Appeal. She also stated that he should pass the e-mail back if
he believed it to be a new complaint, which he duly did.
For your information the IPCC allocates the work to its staff based on
the category of work and geographical location of the force who are the
subject of the complaint. Accordingly all new complaints are dealt with
by my team at our London office and all Appeals, Dispensations and
Discontinuances are dealt with by the IPCC regional office dealing with
the Police Force concerned. In your case our Sale office deal with all
such matters regarding Merseyside Police related Appeals, Dispensation
And Discontinuances.
Since the e-mail of the 10th November 2007 was considered a new
complaint it was passed back to my department where it was assigned to
Casework Manager Sarah Brown, Joanne Fitzgerald having since moved into
a different department. Ms Brown contacted you on the 7th December 2007
and informed you that she had taken over the matter from Ms Fitzgerald.
However, I can see that since Ms Fitzgerald had informed you that she
had passed the e-mail to Mr Gibbs, you might still have expected a reply
from him even though you had been contacted by Ms Brown. I apologise if
there was any confusion there.
Also in your e-mail of 3rd January I notice that you refer to advice
received from Ms Brown that you should contact the police regarding your
lack of confidence in them. You state that this doesn't make sense.
While I appreciate you may wish the IPCC to become involved at this
point, you must remember that 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. Therefore, while I
acknowledge your frustration with the response, Ms Brown advice to you
was appropriate.

You also raised 3 concerns following a new e-mail sent to Ms Fitzgerald
on 5th December 2007.
1) How to deal with a letter from the police.
2) How to deal with a letter from the IPCC, in connection with an
harassment episode on Walton Lane Police Station on 8/11.
3) The problem with Mr. Gibbs not answering the e-mail sent on 10th
November 2007.

You go on to say that you consider only the 2nd point to have been
answered by Sarah Brown. However I can see that Ms Brown contacted you
by e-mail on 11th December 2007 and stated that whilst the police are
conducting an investigation into your complaint the IPCC is unable to
intervene and is not able to dictate which department carries out this
investigation. She went on to say that you will need to speak to the
Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Merseyside Police to discuss
further. While I appreciate that this does not make specific reference
to the letter received from the police, dated 3rd December 2007, it is
quite clear that we were not able to intervene and that you should
contact the PSD. As for the 3rd point concerning Mr Gibbs not
responding, I assume that Mr Gibbs did not feel it was necessary to
contact you since Ms Brown was now dealing with the e-mail from you. Ms
Brown similarly did not make reference to Mr Gibbs since she had
informed you that she would be responding to the e-mail that you had
sent Miss Fitzgerald.

The final point you make in your e-mail, dated 3rd January 2008, was,
broadly, that the latest complaint should perhaps be dealt with together
with the previously made complaints. As you will be aware, the Appeal
that you submitted to IPCC in August 2007 had already been upheld and
the Merseyside Force instructed to 'record' your complaint. Therefore
they were already looking into that matter and the IPCC would not have
been able to instruct them to add any new matters to the existing
complaint. However, it is entirely possible that they might have chosen
to add them together once the new complaint was submitted. Once the
Force had completed their enquiries into any of the complaints that you
raised, you would have had a right to Appeal to the IPCC.

I hope that this e-mail addresses the concerns that you have raised and
helps to explain the process that the IPCC has to follow and the reasons
behind some of the decisions that we took.

yours sincerely


Peter Crouch
Senior Casework Manager
Telephone Complaints Centre
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Direct Line: 020 7166 3123
Personal Fax: 020 7166 3423
E-mail: peter.crouch@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk







******************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient
please notify the sender and delete this email; any disclosure, copying or
distribution of this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. The content of
this email represents the views of the individual and not necessarily those
of IPCC. IPCC reserves the right to monitor the content of all emails in
accordance with lawful business practice.This e-mail has been swept for
computer viruses but IPCC does not accept any liability in respect of your
receipt of this email.

Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London,
WC1V 6BH.
******************************************************************************

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.