OVIC references included QVIC C/25/01498 and COR25164610.
To: IBAC, Victor Elliot
As you have not provided the name, position or signature of the officer responsible for this letter, I will not accept it as an adequate evidential record of who investigated my complaint, who made the decision, or who accepts responsibility for that decision.
You have also failed to answer the substantive points put to you in my previous letters. I consider that failure to engage with the matters raised to be unreasonable conduct within the meaning of my published Unreasonable Behaviour Policy:
https://martinnewbold.co.uk/Unreasonable_Behaviour_Policy.php
That policy operates a zero-tolerance approach to unreasonable behaviour, including failure to follow applicable policies, mandates, procedures and published rules of operation.
As the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (Victoria), IBAC is required to operate within its statutory framework under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic):
That is the current authorised Victorian legislation page, showing the Act in force.
I therefore give formal notice to Victor Elliot that my Unreasonable Behaviour Policy has now been triggered. If a full and complete response to the information and issues requested is not provided, the policy will be triggered again and the further failure will be recorded accordingly.
For the avoidance of doubt, I require a substantive response addressing each point raised, rather than a generic or unidentified reply.
Most importantly, you have not operated a Stage 1 or Stage 2 complaint procedure in relation to my complaint, and you have not provided the name and signature of the officer who investigated or determined either stage.
Please now provide:
- Confirmation of whether my complaint has been registered as a Stage 1 complaint or Stage 2 complaint.
- The complaint reference number for that Stage 1 or Stage 2 complaint.
- The full name, position and signature of the officer investigating the complaint.
- The full name, position and signature of the officer determining the complaint, if different.
- A point-by-point response to every substantive matter raised in my letters.
- Copies of, or references to, the evidence and records relied upon.
- Details of the procedure for escalation or review following the Stage 1 or Stage 2 complaint decision.
Until IBAC provides a properly identified response under its Stage 1 or Stage 2 complaint process, I do not accept the unidentified letter as a substantive complaint determination or as evidence that the complaint procedure has been properly operated.
Warm regards,
Martin Newbold
www.martinnewbold.co.uk
www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world
- FORMAL LETTER — WHO WARNED MATTHEW DUNKLEY? WHO AUTHORISED HIS EXIT?
- Subject: IBAC — Failure to operate Stage 1 or Stage 2 Complaint Procedure
- Urgent Intervention – Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Year Delay
- Podcast Episode: Letter to East Sussex Safeguarding — Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Years
- Letter to East Sussex Safeguarding — Adverse Inferences & Unexplained 19‑Year Delay
Leave a Reply