Our office carries out regularly random dip-checks of complaint outcomes provided by the Surrey Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) in order to identify learning and improve the service that every person who contacts the Force receives.
The below table shows the outcomes of random dip checks of Surrey Police complaint outcomes performed by our office between January 2023 and the end of March 2024:
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Q4 2022/23 | |||||
| CO/592/22 | 10/01/2023 | Race discrimination | Stop of vehicle in early hours of the morning, complainant alleges only stopped as they are black. | No evidence of discrimination as vehicle stopped for legitimate reason. Satisfied complaint dealt with appropriately. | None |
| CO/600/22 | 13/01/2023 | Unprofessional attitude and Race discrimination | Complainant unhappy that the Officer in Charge was not contacting him to collect evidence of his counter allegations to those made by his ex-partner. Alleged discrimination due to his skin colour. | No evidence of discrimination or less favourable treatment. Satisfied complaint dealt with appropriately. | None. |
| CO/676/22 | 13/01/2023 | Race discrimination | Asian officer on training alleged trainer spoke to him in an odd manor and this was due to his skin colour. | No evidence of discrimination. Satisfied complaint handled appropriately. | None. |
| CR/1037/22 | 27/01/2023 | Race discrimination | Complainant alleges officer they spoke to was rude and racist and mispronounced their name. | Complainant withdrew allegations saying they were just unhappy that their case was not being progressed. Satisfied with case being dealt with via Service Recovery. | None. |
| Q1 2023/24 | |||||
| CO/685/22 | 24/04/2023 | Race discrimination | Complaint relates to a stop check whereby the Sikh driver was issued a ticket for use of a mobile phone whilst driving. During the stop, officer asked the complainant what their religion was and if they had their ‘dagger’ on them. | No evidence of discrimination. Satisfied complaint handled appropriately but some learning was identified as opposite. | Officers should be careful of language used when interacting with members of the public from different backgrounds. The Kirpan should not be referred to as a ‘dagger’. It is a religious requirement for many practising Sikh’s and one that is very important to them. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Vetting | 05/05/2023 | Recruitment checks | Police Constable application rejected. | Satisfied decision to reject was appropriate and rationale was sound. Applicant failed to disclose criminal history of partners or financial arrangements. | None |
| Vetting | 05/05/2023 | Recruitment checks | Police Constable application rejected. | Satisfied rejection was appropriate due to non-disclosed issues with importation of an illegal weapon and social media posts. | None. |
| Vetting | 05/05/2023 | Recruitment checks | Detective degree holder entry application rejected. | Satisfied with the decision to reject made on grounds of failure to disclose a police stop and drug wipe. | None. |
| Vetting | 05/05/2023 | Recruitment checks | Police Constable application rejected. | Satisfied that the decision was objective and based on sound rationale. There is no indication of any discrimination as the rejection was due to risks posed by other family members. | None. |
| CO/1915/21 | 29/06/2023 | Sex discrimination | Complaint that female officer in charge of domestic abuse case is not taking any action as they are sexist due to victim being a male. | No evidence of discrimination by officers. Satisfied complaint dealt with appropriately. | None. |
| CO/2153/22 | 29/06/2023 | Sex discrimination | Police attended domestic abuse incident where female partner was banging on the door to retrieve her shoes. Male partner alleges partner was not arrested due to being a female. | No evidence of direct discrimination by officers. Satisfied complaint dealt with appropriately | None. |
| CO/2506/21 | 29/06/2023 | Sex discrimination | Complainant was arrested for public order offence. Alleges she was discriminated against as she was a female. She also alleged she was beaten. | No evidence of discrimination. Reasonable force used to restrain complainant in custody as evidenced by review of CCTV and Body Worn Video. Satisfied complaint dealt with appropriately but note learning opposite. | Complaint handlers should reference in complaint logs any previous similar allegations made against an officer (i.e. bad character). |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Q2 2023/24 | |||||
| CO/842/22 | 20/07/2023 | Sex discrimination | Complainant is a vulnerable female suffering domestic abuse and suffers from mental health issues. She was arrested and sectioned. Complainant alleges male officers were sexist as they took ‘the side’ of her male partner. | Satisfied complaint handled correctly. Officers’ actions were appropriate, and no discrimination identified. | None. |
| CO/148/22 | 14/09/2023 | Abuse of Position / Corruption | Anonymous complainant alleging a serving officer is using a Surrey Police fuel card fraudulently. | No fraud as officer was entitled to fuel card. Complaint dealt with appropriately. | None. |
| CO/1190/21 | 07/09/2023 | Abuse of Position to pursue an inappropriate relationship | Allegations a serving female officer was having an inappropriate relationship with the complainant’s husband and had influenced a criminal investigation. | No evidence of misconduct. Satisfied complaint was recorded and handled correctly. | IOPC guidance states that the criteria must be assessed based on the allegations made, not their merit. Therefore, no scoping was required. |
| CO/2046/21 | 13/09/2023 | Abuse of Position / Corruption | Complainant felt that an officer who called asking the complainant to call them back about a road traffic accident (RTC) they had witnessed, had used his status as a detective to pressure him into returning his call. | Officer was referred to Reflective Practice Review Process. A very good, prompt, and proportionate investigation. Handler should be commended for regular contact with complainant and for their thorough but fair approach. | Practice Requires Improvement form needs to be completed after each process. |
| CO/2135/21 | 13/09/2023 | Organisational corruption, general level of service | Complainant was arrested and later complained to IOPC that the arrest has tarnished his reputation. | Complainant failed to provide clarity on the points of their complaint. As such, complaint was finalised as ‘unable to determine if service provided was acceptable’. Based on the limited information available, satisfied complaint was dealt with reasonably and proportionately. | It appears that limited contact was made between PSD and the complainant between the initial lodging of the complaint and the final outcome. Updates to complainants should be regular and meaningful. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| CO/2135/21 | 13/09/2023 | Organisational corruption, general level of service | Complainant was arrested and later complained to IOPC that the arrest has tarnished his reputation. | Complainant failed to provide clarity on the points of their complaint. As such, complaint was finalised as ‘unable to determine if service provided was acceptable’. Based on the limited information available, satisfied complaint was dealt with reasonably and proportionately. | It appears that limited contact was made between PSD and the complainant between the initial lodging of the complaint and the final outcome. Updates to complainants should be regular and meaningful. |
| CO/2356/21 | 13/09/2023 | Abuse of Position / Corruption | Complainant unhappy that a police sergeant attending her RTC passed on a form with her details to the DVLA. Felt that all officers were corrupt. | Actions of the sergeant were appropriate. Complaint dealt with by service recovery sameday and this was appropriate. | None |
| CO/2482/21 | 13/09/2023 | Abuse of Position / Corruption | Complainant alleges an officer has used their warrant card to secure parking near their house. | Not a Surrey officer so passed to Met/TVP. Complaint dealt with appropriately. | Should be finalised as ‘de-recorded’ as not a Surrey officer. |
| CO/1353/22 | 19/09/2023 | Abuse of Position for sexual purpose | Complainant discovered a photo of an officer kissing the complainant’s fiancé whilst in uniform and on duty. | PSD found officers’ actions were unacceptable but did not amount to misconduct. Officer put on Reflective Practice Review Process. Satisfied that the complaint was dealt with reasonably and proportionately. The complaint handler should be praised for a thorough investigation. | None |
| CO/1642/22 | 18/09/2023 | Abuse of position for other purpose and general level of service | Complaint that an allegation of fraud was not being progressed due to the Officer in Charge having an affair with the complainant’s ex-partner. | No evidence of any such affair although officer should have contacted the complainant. Satisfied this complaint was dealt with reasonably and proportionately. | None |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Q3 2023/24 | |||||
| CO/01054/22 | 19/10/2023 | Abuse of position, pursuing inappropriate relationship / Long bail period / Detention issues | Complainant believes the bail period of over 6 months was too long and that he was treated unfairly during the investigation. Also believed an ex-Surrey Police officer had formed an inappropriate relationship with his ex-partner. | The complaint handler kept an open mind and was fair, transparent, and objective. Not only did they understand the points of the complaint, they also were able to deem an outcome that seems sensible and fair to all concerned. All areas of the complaint were found to not have merit. Satisfied that this complaint was dealt with reasonably and proportionately and that the outcome was appropriate. | There was a delay in referral to the IOPC regarding the point of complaint about the ex-Surrey Police officer. PSD to be reminded that any matters of abuse of position for sexual purpose or for the purpose of pursuing an inappropriate relationship is a mandatory referral to the IOPC. This should happen without delay and in any case not later than the end of the day after it first becomes clear to PSD that this is a matter which must be referred. |
| Vetting 227939 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Applicant rejected due to personal circumstances and links to known associates. | Risks could not be mitigated so satisfied rejection is appropriate in this case. | None |
| Vetting 228401 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police volunteer | Period of residence in UK not of sufficient length to proceed with application. | Application requires residency of 3 years and applicant has substantially less than this. Satisfied rejection is appropriate in this case. | None |
| Vetting 228574 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | Applicant rejected due to links to known associates. | Risks could not be mitigated so satisfied rejection is appropriate in this case. | None |
| Vetting 228677 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | Applicant rejected due to personal financial circumstances and links to known associates. | Satisfied rejection is appropriate in this case. | None. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Vetting 228933 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Applicant rejected due to personal circumstances. | Satisfied vetting decision was not discriminatory in relation to persons from troubled backgrounds and rejection appropriate. | None. |
| Vetting 230260 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Applicant rejected due to personal financial circumstances. | Satisfied rejection is appropriate in this case. | None. |
| Vetting 230278 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | In appeal so no review conducted. | Awaiting appeal decision but reviewing. | None. |
| Vetting 230512 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Failure to disclose police investigation when 17 years old. Applicant states they were advised not to disclose. | Case being re-opened to ascertain who advised the applicant and why they failed to mention this on application form. **REVIEW COMPLETED BY JOINT FORCE VETTING MANAGER** found that the candidate was advised by his parents not to disclose the information. The applicant was not interviewed because he had already revisited the relevant security questions and made the necessary disclosure, prior to the decision being made. The offence was recent and serious in nature and it was felt placing the applicant in a position of authority within two years of the investigation would be inappropriate. It was felt that the applicant should perhaps wait until he is older to ensure he has taken time to reflect on what happened before reapplying. Following this review satisfied rejection was appropriate in this case. | None. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Vetting 231464 | 31/10/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | In appeal so no review conducted. | Awaiting appeal decision but reviewing. | None. |
| Vetting 233683 | 06/11/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Case was subject to an appeal and notes indicate extensive risks to OCG and therefore, vulnerabilities against police assets. APP was interviewed and offered an opportunity to provide further information to mitigate risks however, recent contact from relative existing prison and father still visiting detainees present high risks therefore, application rejected. | Decision to reject appropriate. | None. |
| Vetting 235367 | 18/12/2023 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | Having reviewed this case it appears the applicant has applied to become a police officer. APP is of a minority group and no evidence was found of disproportionality. Application was rejected as applicant has been involved with police on 3 occasions and could potentially demonstrate a pattern of behavior. The link to an individual who had recently been shot could also pose as a risk, although it was noted that the applicant states he no longer has contact. The theft of tripod and fraud which is linked to the applicant could not be proven that he was the suspect, however again the explanation given by the applicant did not satisfy the decision maker to be able to categorically eliminate this as a risk. | Applicant was offered a vetting interview and i have seen the summary and am satisfied that the decision to reject was reasonable and correct. | None. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Q4 2023/24 | |||||
| CO/01595/22 | 05/03/2024 | General level of service and Out of Court disposals | Complaint from associated person (son of the victim) relates to CP’s father being incorrectly identified by police for shouting at a child. Officers attended address incorrectly and attempted to issue CP’s father with a Community Resolution for public order offence (CR) [out of custody disposal]. | Complaint handler found that the service provided was not acceptable. OPCC is satisfied that reasonable and proportionate action was taken in this case. Handler truly understood the nature of the complaint and was empathetic and understanding of the impact this incident had on the CP’s father. | Good meaningful updates by handler with CP and excellently recorded however, I am concerned about the lack of detail on the PRI form. There should be more detail on the form of what actually occurred and the reflections of the officer and comments from the line manager. In future more emphasis is placed on the correct completion of this form so that it is clear to an independent reviewer that the officer has learned from this and how. |
| CO/02016/22 | 05/03/2024 | General level of service and police action following contact | Complaint relates to an ongoing neighbourhood dispute whereby CP not happy with police response, investigation or outcome. | OPCC review found that the complaint handler considered all the circumstances of this complaint, and that reasonable and proportionate action was taken to address it. Having reviewed the email exchanges between the handler and the CP, it is clear that the handler was alive to the complexity of this case, the trauma to the CP and also the volume of demands from them. OPCC is satisfied that handling was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. | None. |
| CO/01053/22 | 06/03/2024 | Police action following contact | Complainant believes they should have been treated as a victim and referred to victim support but was not. | Complaint handler considered all the circumstances of this complaint and OPCC is satisfied that reasonable and proportionate action was taken in this case. | None. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| CO/00691/23 | 07/03/2024 | General level of service and police action following contact | Already subject of LPBH review under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 so case not checked again. | – | None. |
| CO/00879/23 | 07/03/2024 | General level of service. | Already subject of LPBH review under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 so case not checked again. | – | None |
| Recruitment Vetting 235698 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Case reviewed at Sussex Police HQ with VM. Applicant to become a PSCO from Asian background. Dip check focused on disproportionality. Vetting rejected due to unacceptable and high risks relating to this applicant and the role applied for as a PCSO. • Financial vulnerability (08) a cause for rejection due to high risk of financial vulnerability – many defaults in payments and also FPN. Furthermore, Intelligence (05) and Integrity (09) again are factors due to DV incidents etc. not all disclosed together with previous arrests etc. i.e. bomb hoax. | I considered whether a vetting interview could have been offered in this case, however, it appears from log entries that there has been many attempts to communicate with the applicant, but they have been very elusive and vague in their responses, therefore, i deem the decision to reject appropriate in this case. | None. |
| Recruitment Vetting 236274 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | Application rejected due to non -disclosure of shop lifting offence whist juvenile and also disclosure or association with father who has convictions for drink driving x 2. Furthermore, intel marker regarding her vehicle linked to drugs. Matters could have been probed further during vetting interview as it is unclear why the app failed to disclose above. | Some cultures find it difficult to challenge and/or find out information about parents etc so it maybe useful to probe this further. I suggest a vetting interview to review this app again. | Some cultures find it difficult to challenge and/or find out information about parents etc. and this should be taken into account when making vetting decisions. |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Recruitment Vetting 238607 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Applicant is an Indian national who applied to work within IT department that carries a MV vetting clearance requirement. Vetting was rejected on the bases of residency as they have only been resident since September 2022. MV post requires minimum of 5 years residency. | I have looked for disproportionality in decision making in this case and none has been found. Objective decision making based on Vetting APP and Codes of Practice. | None, |
| Recruitment Vetting 238643 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | Focus of dip check was disproportionality in decision making. No evidence found. Applicant applied for facilities coordinator requiring RV clearance. Checks have been carried out in line with vetting app. Applicant does not meet the residency criteria which is set out by the app. He has stated that she has only resided in the UK since 03/22. This means he is over 1 year away from meeting the criteria. | Decision to reject appropriate. | None. |
| Recruitment Vetting 233683 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Staff | 06/11/2023 | Case reviewed with VM at Sussex Police HQ. Case was subject to an appeal and notes indicate extensive risks to OCG and therefore, vulnerabilities against police assets. APP was interviewed and offered an opportunity to provide further information to mitigate risks however, recent contact from relative existing prison and father still visiting detainees present high risks therefore, application rejected. | 233683 |
| PSD Ref. | Dip-Check Date | Theme/s | Summary | Outcome of Dip-Check | Learning or Recommendation for complaint handler or Force |
| Recruitment Vetting 235367 | 27/03/2024 | Application to join Surrey Police as Police Officer | 18/12/2023 | Case reviewed for disproportionality at Sussex Police HQ. Having reviewed this case, it appears the applicant has applied to become a police officer. APP is of a minority group and no evidence was found of disproportionality. Application was rejected as applicant has been involved with police on 3 occasions and could potentially demonstrate a pattern of behavior. The link to an individual who had recently been shot could also pose as a risk, although it was noted that the applicant states he no longer has contact. The theft of tripod and fraud which is linked to the applicant could not be proven that he was the suspect, however again the explanation given by the applicant did not satisfy the decision maker to be able to categorically eliminate this as a risk. Applicant was offered a vetting interview and i have seen the summary and am satisfied that the decision to reject was reasonable and correct. | 235367 |