IOPC Confirms Multiple Failings by Dorset Police Following Complaint from Bournemouth Entrepreneur Who Lost His Business

Bournemouth, UK 28-05-2025 – The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has, in an official statement, confirmed a series of failings and unacceptable actions by Dorset Police officers. This decision follows a complaint lodged by a Bournemouth entrepreneur who alleges that the actions of the police led to the collapse of his company, Phones Rescue Ltd., and ruined his life.

The entrepreneur has long raised issues of incompetence, gender discrimination, evidence fabrication, and negligence on the part of Dorset Police. According to the IOPC document, the Bureau acknowledged that in several key areas, the police’s actions were unacceptable.

Key IOPC Findings Confirming Breaches:

In its decision dated 27 May 2025, regarding the complaint review (reference number 2024/199375), the IOPC highlighted the following issues with Dorset Police’s actions:

1. Unacceptable Level of Service in the Investigation Concerning the Entrepreneur as a Victim: The IOPC stated that “the service level determined for the investigation into you as a victim was found to be not acceptable.” Additionally, the report concerning a counter-allegation made by the entrepreneur “was closed prematurely, and it required multiple efforts on your part to have this recorded.”
2. Errors by PC Pratt: It was conceded that PC Pratt made an error by prematurely closing a report and failing to take appropriate action regarding the counter-allegation. It was stated that “this issue has been acknowledged as an error on the part of PC Pratt.” Furthermore, PC Pratt did not contact the entrepreneur to inform him of a bail extension, which was also deemed an “unacceptable” service provision. The IOPC also confirmed PC Pratt’s error in improperly handling a report where the entrepreneur was the victim: “however, due to an error by PC Pratt, the report naming you as the victim did not go forward as expected.”
3. Inadequate Handling of Violence Reports: The IOPC found the actions (or lack thereof) in response to reports of violence made by the entrepreneur to be “unacceptable.” It was noted that “Dorset Police initially failed to take appropriate action,” and his subsequent reports “should have prompted an investigation, but this did not commence until July 2024.”
4. Non-compliance with the Victim’s Code: It was confirmed that Dorset Police “did not comply with the Victim’s Code” regarding one of the reports, as it was “closed without providing an update or follow-on Victim Support.”
5. Inappropriate Conduct by a Police Call Handler: The manner in which a police call handler (number 7213) spoke to the entrepreneur was assessed as “unacceptable,” as “the tone and wording used by the call taker could have been improved, and a clearer explanation of why an update could not be provided would have been beneficial.”

Consequences for the Entrepreneur and Loss of Business

The former owner of Phones Rescue Ltd., a company specialising in phone repairs, has long publicly detailed his struggles with the system. On the Bournemouth Bond website, he describes how a series of – in his view – incompetent actions by Dorset Police, as well as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Bournemouth Crown Court, led to the downfall of his legitimate business. He claims he was a victim of discrimination, police lies, and evidence fabrication, and that his complaints were ignored.

In an article titled “Bankruptcy Phones Rescue Due To Incompetence Of Bournemouth Police, CPS, And Bournemouth Crown Court,” the former business owner writes: “In this article, I will present the incompetence of the Dorset Police, gender discrimination, police lies, evidence fabrication, ignoring complaints, and negligence that led to the ruin of the Phones Rescue company and ruined my life.”

Although the IOPC, in its final conclusion, stated that “the outcome of your complaint was reasonable and proportionate” and therefore the application for review was not upheld, and also that “there is no indication that the officers’ actions constitute misconduct,” the admission of numerous errors and unacceptable practices by an independent police watchdog constitutes a significant validation of many of the allegations raised by the entrepreneur.

The case of the Bournemouth entrepreneur sheds light on the potentially devastating consequences of procedural errors and improper conduct by law enforcement agencies on citizens’ lives and their businesses. Despite the IOPC not finding grounds to determine misconduct, the identified failings and “lessons [that] have been implemented” serve as a bitter acknowledgment for the Bournemouth businessman who, as a result of these events, lost his livelihood.