Call for Solicitor against police

I am in a probate case where my father died 24/11/22 leaving a 1.2mil house.
 
My brother we believed forged a cheque (after death) to make him the main heir, out of seven children. 
He hired solicitors to allegedly fake a will (according to handwriting expert) and presented the forged cheque to these solicitors, who cashed it illegally, a day after death (we informed them it was forged early 2023 but they continued to act 'unauthorised', with no due dillegence), the bank said in mid Nov 24 it was fraudulent. The sum in a normal probate case the solicitors act in is £5k minimum on their website yet this was just £1,080 and the bank has now proved the fraud, making these solicitors totally 'unauthorised'.
 
My older sister has been complaining, seeking an investigation of Hubbard Pegman & Whitney solicitors through the SRA but she got cancer 16th June 24 so has had to slow down, hence me dealing a bit with it.
 
On 23rd June 2024, I went to the premises, to see if my brother was renting them.
 
On 24th July 2024 a full phat month later, I got an email, containing a malicious allegation from the unauthorised solicitors, regarding £5k damage, to the stain glass in the front door, on June 23rd 24.

There was no coloured glass on the floor in video taken, by the illegal occupant, that the police/solicitors and Pat, presented as their evidence.. an elementary mistake, don't you think, since I'm in the video!!!

 

I knew that the stain glass was not damaged at all as it just fell in, as you can see, the stain glass is missing, it's fallen behind the door, hanging at the back of the door and it's complete which is great and

it's utterly undamaged, except the plain glass covering it had broken but that's worth around £20, to replace. Regardless it's not £5k! The police had never even been there so it was all made up after the event. These solicitors 'malicious allegation' which is a criminal offence, letter stated that the matter was with the police!! So it's bad enough they are unauthorised, by the Legal Services Act and standing in the way of our inheritance, damaged our oldest sisters health, now this! They know £5k is a jailable offence and they all know, the police don’t see eye to eye with me, so it's particularly malicious as I've no criminal record. 

I saw this as an after the event way of setting me up and although I had previously not wanted to press criminal charges against the firm and my brother, preferring to be civil and let my sister deal with 'step negligence', in a death bed will through the SRA, I now knew this firm and my brother were playing badly.
 
I made a 101-report immediately and sent it back to these solicitors, Charlotte Pegman, stating that this was a 'malicious allegation', that the firm had 'cashed a forged dead man’s cheque a day after he had died' and they were acting in an 'unauthorised capacity' and were also in that letter 'threatening theft by costs'.
 
I made the police report out at 3am, 24th July 2024, as I had only just seen their email in the middle of the night, from the firm with this, alarming malicious allegation and police action threat, so I responded quick.
 
I sent the 101 police report to Charlotte Pegman, the author of the HPW letter, she is a contentious probate litigator/solicitor for the firm, whom my brother had in Jan 23 employed, (recently the SRA told us that they renounced their executor position on my birthday 23rd Jan 23' and made one son the benfactor, the 'executor'.. doesn't make sense, since they sent us 'will' letters in Feb 2023) to in his words, 'treat them like strangers'. He really likes money doesn't he? The firm had a percentage interest written into the fake will.
 
 
At 8.30am 24th July 2024 three crime detective police officers which are flat capped like these

from Charing Cross police, in uniform, with a marked car, sped into my street, they got in through two locked doors, presenting at my flat door, on the third floor of my four-storey building.
 
They are not my local police, Holborn and they are not my next nearest Islington, nor Kentish Town, the third nearest but you have to also be alarmed or aware of their senior rank? Especially when I've done nothing but had warning with the solicitors dodgy letter only a few hours before, it's well OTT right?
 
I was too worried to answer the door as I was aware that I now had a malicious allegation against me. Instead, I immediately called the police (I recorded the call) and was told that they had nothing on the 

national police data base around my name or my address and they did not know why they were outside. 

So, I also called the local police and checked with them, (recording that call) again nothing.

 

I went to Kent to a Travel Lodge to stay safe as the next day I had to go to Brighton to my other sister’s music degree graduation, that I just could not miss.
 
I was very aware of being surveyed.
 
I then went home and I got a very dodgy unprofessional 'honest to God' language, phone call (I recorded).

 

It was a man claiming to be from Charing Cross police but bearing in mind I have an address for post and an email address that could have been used from 23rd June 2024 and it was now 2nd August 2024, a full 5 weeks later, again I treated this call with doubt especially when I tried to engage with the man and he said, “honest to god, you just don’t understand, you just have to come down to Charing Cross police station”, and then hung up when I was questioning firstly assertions and that it was civil and mine and if it was an interview under caution and if I could have a time and a solicitor present? It seemed a chancy phone call.

Then on 5th August 2024, three plain clothed, bullet proof vested, 

fire arms officers, arrived at my door, with one brandishing a battering ram, without a warrant.
Again I called the police, (I filmed the event & Live streamed) and I was arrested.
 
I had my rights read to me outside my door after I had locked it and was on my stairwell third floor and one of them turned around and prevented me from continuing down my stairs to the three steps down window stairwell, with just his groin. They then searched me and took my keys, they also asked for my mobile phone and I replied, “I threw it out the window” and they said “we’ll see it on the way down then”. Alarmed by his lack of use of his hands, I took down my jeans to show, no weapon, showing my pockets, empty and put them back up and the same man said, ‘oh don’t be a child”. Later in the car he said his wife works at the child abuse inquiry (I thought what but it's over).
 
I knocked on my neighbour’s door when passing it on a lower floor and said, loudly, “I’m being arrested” and she then subsequently got more mobile footage including, me being handcuffed in the car, whilst three officers were around me.
 
In the car, the officer said, “are we going to be famous then, what channel are we being live-streamed” and I said, “YouTube” but wondered how he would know?
 
Even though they and the questioning DI were from Charing Cross police, they were asked by my neighbour where I was being taken and they said Islington police station.
 
In the cage before entering the custody suite, a WPC was asked to search me.
 
The desk sergeant arrived, opening the door and said, “take those off her” meaning the handcuffs as I wasn't a flight risk and it seemed by his tone ridiculous.
 
I was then asked my details and finger printed and put in a cell whilst the DI arrived from Charing Cross police. He insistently looked into the cell. He then arrived a few hours later and with a paralegal who had also according to my friend outside, arrived much earlier too, questioned me, mentioning trusts, and things that seemed beyond my knowledge, so I was advised anyway to do a ‘no comment’ interview. I asked the paralegal to give a statement at the end, to say;
“I have made a 101 report this morning that this is a malicious allegation, that the person/people making it have committed fraud, by way of a forged cheque and I should not have been arrested when I was easily contacted formally”
 
Then instead of releasing me, without charge since
1.    They had never visited the premises or investigated in June 2024.
2.    They called the place road and street so had no knowledge of the address.
3.    Had arrested for a crime worth £5k a jailable offence, when the officers stated at the desk to the sergeant, “more like £500” (actually £20).
They locked me in the cell for a further few hours and released me after 7 hours.
 
Further the CPS asked them to ‘investigate’ which seemed the wrong way around and they then ‘police bailed’ me to Charing Cross police station on Sunday 3rd November 2024, without any charge at all.
 
Now, I knew that was dangerous situation to be in as they had already showed excessive force and policing and also knew this was not a £5k jailable offence.
 
I would then be in fear of being stopped whilst on bail for just about anything and so I applied to the local magistrate’s court in Islington on 27th Sept 2024 after no contact from them whatsoever, for a police bail hearing to have it lifted and then I served it to my crime solicitors, Charing Cross police, the DCI because apparently he was in charge, I was told, after complaining to the DPS, who said they could not deal with a live investigation, so to contact him, so I served the Bcl001.
 
Within less than a minute, the solicitors called me saying that the police had no further actioned it. She said they were just putting together the paperwork.
 
I never got the paperwork. I asked the solicitor to ask them but she didn’t.
 
I had no formal way of knowing that I was off police bail or not?
 
I had to cancel a trip to Spain as I had to attend on the 3rd Nov 2024 but since I went to the old station which was closed and then got some police activity around I decided that since I was late, perhaps I would take the word of the solicitor.
 
I then had an anxious week waiting about to be potentially missed bail arrested.
 
I made a freedom of information request only to find out 26th Nov 2024 that the police only did the NFA on 23rd Oct 2024 so I was right to be cautious and they still have it on the police database.
 

During Nov NatWest bank said the cheque that paid the solicitors was a forgery yet they are still at large and despite this none of the parties have been arrested. I reported as told to do so, in interview, the forged cheque as a different incident but they are linked. So, after all this I only did on the 8th Oct 2024, when I could be forgiven for maybe believing that I may possibly be off police bail even though I wasn’t and again within 33 minutes of the 101 report, I had a phone call from a police officer who said she was outside my flat, luckily I wasn’t there, and she said to go to the police in Kentish Town or in Islington.
 
Instead, I went to Holborn after photocopying £50 of evidence and putting it in six envelopes, to six police forces by registered tracked post.
 
Fearing for my safety I then went to court 37 and managed to get a 4pm hearing regarding the forged cheque and he was an excellent judge, like I hadn’t seen in many years and understood I wanted to cut the gordian knot so he said do a money claim.
 
The solicitors asked for strict proof of forgery so I got a handwriting expert and then was able to use that for the bank fraud team who responded quickly saying even without the handwriting expert they could see it was not the handwriting or signature of their client.
 
I want to have a 100% compensation CFA for wrongful arrest, battery and false imprisonment.
 
I also want this removed from my record since it’s defamatory and they never believed it to be true either so it looks terrible for a DBS;
 
Disposal History
Disposal (NFA)
Description: NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION) 23/10/24 AT 01FH
NFA Date: 23/10/24
Text: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Offence Count: 1
Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Last Updated: 23/10/24
Offence
Arrest/Summons Ref: 24/0000/00/989601B
Crime Reference: 01FH12135/24/1
Offence Number: 1
Court/Caution/Force Reference: 01FH/12135/24/1
Court Offence Number: 1
Adjudication: NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION)
Originator: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Offence Description: DESTROY OR DAMAGE PROPERTY (VALUE OF DAMAGE OVER
£5000 – OFFENCE AGAINST CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971 ONLY)
ACRO Subject Access Request SA/24/031784 Mary Josephine MOSS
Your disclosure is for personal use only - you are NOT obligated to provide this to a third party.
Page 2 of 2
Offence Date(s): 23/06/24 11:11
Disposal: NFA (NO FURTHER ACTION) 23/10/24 AT 01 (METROPOLITAN
POLICE) FS/REF: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)

King to King bring the Legal Budget up to a fashionable 2025

 

Waiting for Solicitors Regulatory Authority to reply yawwwnnnnnn!!

That was today.. Complained to SRA a few days ago about the SRA... what is the point of watchdogs?

This one was on Monday.. nothing back yet

IOPC complaint waiting for outcome

 

Defamation

 

 

IOPC update - Infuriating!!!

 

Dear Vanessa,

My brothers death was not natural.

See attached his face was assaulted.

I made a complaint to the IOPC and if you had done your job then, he may not have been assaulted. The complaint was against PC Karl Bassam and Charing Cross police you have a record of it but if not they are the parties.

The picture of Edward and I is him alive with me on 7th July 2021.

Kind Regards

Mary Moss

Dear Ms Moss,

 

Thank you for your email. My decision letter dated 26 March 2023 adequately sets out the rationale for my decision, and the steps you may wish to consider should you wish to request any additional information about the complaint you previously made.

 

I again invite you to provide any information which might assist the IOPC in identifying the status of any complaint you previously made to us.  

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Vanessa 

 

 

Dear Vanessa,

I received the email and have just read it.

Can you explain why a 'welfare visit' was carried out from a noise complaint a month after the event?

Can you explain why the investigation by IOPC about my brother can't be forwarded?

Can you explain why the Commander whom I never met can write me into his historical document as a colleague of a labour party councillor, when I am not?

I appreciate your limited powers to investigate, from recent changes to the IOPC.

Kind Regards

Mary Moss

Owner
One Percent 4 ART

 

Ms Mary Moss

26 March 2024

Dear Ms Moss,

This letter is about your application for a review of the complaint decision by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) which we received on 11 December 2023.

The IOPC is independent of the police.1 Our role is to decide whether your complaint against the MPS was handled correctly and the outcome was reasonable and proportionate. This decision was communicated to you by PC Lewsley in a letter dated 22 November 2023.

We have not investigated your complaint as part of this review.

In deciding whether the outcome was reasonable and proportionate, I have considered whether:

• the complaint handler engaged with you to fully understand and address your complaint

• the complaint handler conducted adequate enquiries and considered relevant information

• the conclusion was logical, appropriate and evidence-based

• reasonable actions were taken to address your complaint

• any potential for learning was identified as part of the process.

  You may like to read a copy of our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to help you understand more about how we make our decisions, including a definition of what we mean by ‘reasonable and proportionate’. I have included a copy of our FAQs with this letter.

  1 Our legal powers and duties are set out in paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and Regulation 29 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

My decision

I have concluded that the outcome of your complaint WAS reasonable and proportionate. Therefore your application for review is NOT UPHELD.

When making my decision, I have considered:
▪ Your original complaint dated 15 April 2023.
▪ Your application for review letter dated 11 December 2023.
▪ Supplementary material you have sent in support of your application.
▪ The report prepared by the Complaint Handler (CH) PC Lewsley dated 22 November

2023 and the evidence referred to in their report.

Application for review

In your application for review dated 11 December 2023, you asked me to review the IO’s findings regarding the reasons for the welfare visit and you queried the information provided to you regarding GDPR. You also referred to information provided to you by the CH regarding the outcome of a previous complaint that you made to the MPS regarding your brother’s treatment. You asserted that you have no record of the IOPC’s decision.

Complaint
Following an incident on 3 March 2023 involving your neighbour, officers from the MPS visited your home in order to speak with you. You submitted a complaint on 15 April 2023 in which you alleged the police were overzealous in their actions over a noise complaint. In your view, the police wished to harm you by arresting you because you are in litigation with the Chief Constable of the MPS.

I am satisfied that the CH has engaged with you and has taken all reasonable steps to understand your complaint and address your concerns, which were accurately summarised in the outcome letter.

My Assessment
I am satisfied that the CH has conducted reasonable and proportionate enquiries and considered relevant information.

I consider that the conclusion was logical, appropriate and evidence-based and that reasonable actions were taken to address your complaint.

Accordingly, I consider the overall outcome to be reasonable and proportionate.

My rationale
I note that the CH’s outcome letter summarised the information and evidence which was obtained and considered during the handling of your complaint. I have carefully reviewed the information submitted with the background papers, and in my view, the summary provided in the CH’s outcome letter accurately reflects this information.

I have reviewed the emails sent between you and PC Czinege from the MPS 2

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

Neighbourhood Policing Team, in which I can see that he attempted to answer your questions and allay your concerns regarding the reasons for the police welfare visit to your home address. I have also reviewed the MPS incident logs. PC Czinege clarified the reasons for the police welfare check following your contact with the police, and confirmed the visit was not in response to a warrant under the Mental Health Act.

The information provided to you by PC Czinege was re-iterated in the outcome letter from the CH, who confirmed that the police visits to your home address were in relation to a genuine policing purpose. In my opinion, having reviewed all the available information, I do not consider these police visits to be highly unusual, as you asserted. I am satisfied that the CH provided adequate information about the reasons for the police visits to your home address and provided a reasonable response to your complaint. The information I have reviewed, including the incident logs, does not support your assertion that the reasons for the police visits were linked to any previous complaints that you made to police. I can see from the outcome letter that when officers attended your home on 3 March 2023 and 15 April 2023, they knocked on your door however you did not answer. In my opinion, the evidence does not indicate that the actions taken by officers from the MPS, as discussed within the outcome letter, constitutes a criminal offence as you asserted.

Your application for a review highlighted your dissatisfaction at the explanation provided regarding disclosure of information under GDPR. I am satisfied that the information provided within the outcome letter is reasonable and proportionate, however I would re- iterate the CH’s advice and suggest that should you believe that you may be entitled to any additional information, that you request this through the appropriate MPS channels.

The CH’s outcome letter further provided information to you regarding the outcome of a complaint you made highlighting your dissatisfaction with Commander Jerome and his involvement/evidence to the Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). I can see from IOPC records that you submitted an appeal against the MPS’s decision letter dated 11 April 2019 to not record your complaint. Your appeal was received by the IOPC on 30 April 2019 and was considered under IOPC reference number 2019/118839. You were informed in our decision letter dated 23 May 2019 that your appeal was not upheld, and the matters you raised should not have been recorded as a complaint.

Our records indicate that you contacted the decision maker, Assessment Analyst Hannah Tyler on 28 May 2019 noting your dissatisfaction with the outcome to your appeal, and she replied to your email on 29 May 2019 reminding you that our decision is final and cannot be changed. This suggests that you were informed of the IOPC’s decision to not uphold your appeal at that time. Should you wish to receive a copy of this decision letter, please inform me of the same and I will forward a copy to you via email.

I am satisfied that the CH’s findings are supported by the available evidence, and the CH has undertaken adequate lines of enquiry to address your complaint reasonably and proportionately, given the explanations provided and the action taken to rectify your complaint. I have not identified any additional lines of enquiry that could be undertaken, which could make a material difference to the CH’s findings and as such, could have a significant effect on the outcome of your complaint. Your review is therefore not upheld.

3

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

Conclusion
I am sympathetic to your description of the distress and trauma you have experienced, and I understand that this outcome may be disappointing to you, should you feel that you have not received a satisfactory remedy to the issues you raised. However, I have considered all the available evidence and for the reasons provided above, I have concluded that the outcome of the enquiries into your complaint was reasonable and proportionate, and the finding that the service you received was acceptable to be logical. No further action is required in respect of these matters.

Organisational learning

Throughout my assessment, I have carefully considered whether there are any further opportunities for organisational learning or improvement. In this case, I have not identified any additional learning.

Matters we cannot consider

I would like to re-iterate that the purpose of my review is to determine whether your complaint has been handled reasonably and proportionately by the MPS, and that appropriate conclusions have been reached regarding the service you have received.

Your application for review asserted that complaints to the IOPC regarding your brother’s treatment were never responded to. If you made a complaint about the behaviour of police officers, and received an acknowledgement letter or email confirming receipt of your complaint, please provide an IOPC and/or MPS reference number to enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk to request further information, if we hold it within IOPC records, about how your complaint was handled.

In your email to the IOPC sent on 11 December 2023, you provided a letter from the MPS dated 30 March 2020, which confirmed that the complaint made by Mr Edward Moss, MPS reference IX/02108/20, had been recorded. Since this letter came from the MPS Complaints Support Team, please contact the MPS directly for further information about how the complaint was handled.

This letter was addressed to Mr Moss, therefore should you wish to make a request for information to the IOPC, you can find more information about how to do so on our website: Requesting information | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

This concludes my review and I hope my decision and the reasons I have given are clear. You cannot appeal the outcome of this review.

You can contact me if you have any comments or feedback, or if you need more information about the way I have reviewed the force’s handling of your complaint. My contact details are at the end of this letter.

We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of customer service. Please let us know if you are unhappy with the service you have received.

4

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE

Yours sincerely

Vanessa 

Casework Manager

Independent Office for Police Conduct Telephone: 020 7166 3964