Police watchdog apologises for mistaken identity blunder

A pensioner from Wolverhampton received a letter from the Independent Police Complaints Commission saying her complaint about a sexual assault and 'oppressive conduct by an unidentified energy weapon' had not been upheld.

But the letter was actually intended for a woman of the same name living in London.

The woman from Wolverhampton had originally complained in 2009 about an attack on her grandson and her concerns that police had not arrested the people responsible.

The IPCC's letter included details of this complaint alongside those from the other woman accusing the police of criminal violence.

Neither woman can be named for legal reasons because some of the allegations made by the one in London are of a sexual nature.

But the pensioner from the Fordhouses area of Wolverhampton said: "I was shocked to get a letter addressed to me saying I'd made complaints that I had never made. When I told them, the IPCC wrote back to me and asked me to send back the letter so they could destroy."

The original letter, sent from the IPCC, named the woman and said she 'made allegations of assault/sexual assault/oppressive conduct by an unidentified energy weapon. (She) was concerned that the police were trying to murder her and the actions against her constitute state sponsored terrorism. Outcome - appeal not upheld."

The Wolverhampton pensioner said although her name was used, this was not her.

The next part of the letter says there was a complained about her grandson being attacked. This complaint was from her although it erroneously contained a claim that police had not returned the man's clothes.

Finally, there was a passage saying the woman 'complained about the ongoing issue she has had with the police and them deploying criminal violence, harassment and assault in the community including her church and in her own home. Outcome - not upheld'."

A week later the IPCC wrote again to apologise for the 'obvious distress' asking her to 'make no further disclosures of the contents of that letter to any other person'.

IPCC spokesman David Carnell said: "We were asked by an individual to provide a summary of their correspondence with the IPCC. We mistakenly included some information relating to another person of the same name. We are sorry for this error, and we are writing to both parties to explain and apologise.

"This is a very rare occurrence but we take such breaches very seriously. We are looking at what happened, whether we need to change any of our processes and if so how. We are issuing further instructions to relevant staff to reduce any risk of this happening again."

Councillor Ian Angus, who represents Bushbury North, said: "This has been an incredibly distressing experience for my constituent. I welcome the apology by the IPCC but actions are more important than words. The IPCC must ensure that it has processes and safeguards in place to ensure that such data breaches do not occur again."