'Abundantly Clear' insurance claim made by alteration of the word 'or' to 'and'

Dear Richard Roscoe

Will you confirm or deny the Council can lawfully alter the word
'or' in a letter to it to the word 'and' and say to the Ombudsman
it is 'abundantly clear' an insurance claim is made against the
Council based on that alteration.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

Will you explain how my request can harass, annoy or disrupt the
Council as it is a simple request that can be answered by a phone
call by you to the Councils insurance Section who will know the
answer and be able to give the answer to it to you.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I request an internal review

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5

Time limits on carrying out internal reviews

following requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced
this guidance as part of a series of good practice guidance
designed to help understand and apply the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA). FOIA makes reference to complaints procedures at
section 45 (concerning the Code of Practice) and at section 50;
both relate to circumstances where an applicant wishes to complain
about the response of a public authority to a request for
information. The reference at section 50 concerns the discretion
that the Commissioner is allowed to exercise not to make a decision
in cases where a complainant has not exhausted a public authority’s
complaints procedure (also referred to as internal review). The
Commissioner considers it important that internal reviews are
completed as promptly as possible and so is introducing this
guidance setting out what he considers to be a reasonable timescale
for public authorities to undertake an internal review following a
request by an applicant. Section VI of the Section 45 Code of
Practice states that “each public authority should have a procedure
in place for dealing with complaints .... in relation to its
handling of requests for information.” This comprises desirable
practice for the purposes of FOIA, but it should be noted that
under the Environmental Information Regulations it is a requirement
for public authorities to consider representations made by
applicants for information. Consequently, most public authorities
under FOIA should already have the procedures in place to allow
them to perform an internal review. It is also important to note
that Refusal Notices must include either details of the public
authority’s complaints procedure or a statement that it does not
have one. This will assist the Commissioner in determining whether
or not an applicant, on making a complaint under section 50, has
exhausted the complaints procedure of the public authority.

The spirit of the Code is that internal reviews should be completed
as soon as possible. For example:

• a complaints procedure should be designed to allow prompt
determination of complaints (para 39) • target times should be set
for dealing with complaints (para 42).

• the code also recommends that the target times are reviewed
regularly and that each authority should publish them together with
information on its success in meeting those targets.

• there is also an implied recommendation, supported by guidance
issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, that the
complainant should be kept fully informed throughout the review
process. The Commissioner supports these recommendations and
intends, from time to time, to monitor conformity with them. Some
other factors to be noted are as follows:

• FOIA requires a request to be complied with “promptly and in any
event not later than the twentieth working day following the date
of receipt” which suggests that internal reviews should also be
completed promptly.

• Internal review is an important second opportunity for the public
authority to engage with an applicant and there are clear benefits
to both parties if the review is concluded within a reasonable
timeframe.

• The Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 stipulates an
internal review should be completed within 20 working days
following receipt of the request for review.

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a
reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working
days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small
number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it
may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the
public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the
requester and explain why more time is needed.

In our view, in no case should the total time taken exceed 40
working days. In such cases we would expect a public authority to
be able to demonstrate that it had commenced the review procedure
promptly following receipt of the request for review and had
actively worked on the review throughout that period. Some public
authorities have complaints procedures which have a number of
stages or levels. The Commissioner does not expect an internal
review of a response to an FOI request to have more than one stage.
Given that this is a review of a statutory process with clear
rights for requesters and obligations on public authorities, a
degree of formality is expected.

Enforcement

The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a
public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time
the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his
complaint considered under section 50. Equally, it will be
beneficial to both complainant and public authority if an internal
review leads to a prompt and satisfactory outcome such that a
subsequent complaint to the Commissioner is not required. The
Commissioner has therefore set out above what he regards as
“reasonable” in terms of the timescale for completing an internal
review. He is keen to ensure that the time limit is adhered to and
that there are no unreasonable delays in carrying out reviews.

Internal reviews are referred to in the Code of Practice, and
significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with
internal reviews may lead to monitoring by the Enforcement team
and, in some instances, structured intervention, for example, the
issuing of a Practice Recommendation. The Commissioner’s
Enforcement Strategy provides more detail about practice
recommendations and structured intervention.

More information

If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of
freedom of information, please contact us.

Phone: 08456 30 60 60 01625 54 57 45 (National rate) E-mail: please
use the online enquiry form on our website

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: MY FOI REQUEST:

I FIRST REFER YOU TO THE LETTER BELOW I WROTE TO MRS THOMAS, THE
LGO ON JULY 9TH 2001

YOUR REF: 00/c/17558/pat 3/am

I refer you to a letter from Mr Oxley to myself dated 23/2/01 in
which he summarised my complaint against SMBC as

"that the Council issued a claim to its insurers without your
knowledge or permission"

I refer you to my reply dated 27/3/01 which corrects this
summarisation and states the complaint to be that the Council
issued a claim to their insurers based on information they knew to
be false.

The information that I had issued a complaint to the Council as
summarised by Mr Oxley on 23/2/01 was forwarded to the Council.
The
Council responded to that complaint , not my actual complaint.

It appears that the complaint I am really pursuing has not been
addressed despite the many references to it in the correspondence
to your office reproduced below.

10/11/00 + 18/12/00 There is now another issue that I wish to make
a complaint about, this is that the Council have issued a 'claim'
or 'potential claim' to their insurers in regard to my property,
based on information known by then to be false.

28/12/00 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th
December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond to my
further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---Will you please inform
me if you are treating my complaint to you that Sefton MBC have
acted incorrectly by issuing an improper insurance claim,
allegedly
from me, based on information they know to be untrue.

6/2/01 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th and
28th December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond
to
my further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---

Will you please inform me if you are treating my complaint to you
that Sefton MBC have acted incorrectly by issuing an improper
insurance claim, allegedly from me, based on information they know
to be untrue, as a matter of maladministration.---

My letter to you of 24th January 2001 you required more than an
acknowledgement, in it I asked it you were accepting that Sefton
MBC had committed an act of maladministration by issuing an
insurance claim to their insurers based on information they knew
to
be incorrect. As requested on 24th January 2001, will you answer
the question of whether you are accepting the complaint of
maladministration in regard to the insurance claim based on false
information submitted by SMBC to their insurers

Over the past months I have provided you time and again with the
evidence and references that confirms the above. The overwhelming
evidence is that SMBC have without a doubt acted in a manner
calculated to pervert the facts and conceal their misdeeds at my
expense. This has been done by the calculated use of
misinformation, lies and failure to provide answers to my
legitimate and justifiable questions.

23/2/01 The Council as far as I can establish have no liability in
regard to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If
this is the case it follows that they have issued false
information
to myself and their insurers.

1/3/01 The Council as far as I can establish, based on ownership
and possession by others, have no liability or indemnity in regard
to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If this is
the case it follows that they have issued false information to
myself and their insurers the purpose of which appears to
constitute maladministration and an attempt to cover up
wrongdoing.
It also means that indemnity would not be provided to me (if
claimed) by their insurers.

Will you please keep me informed of what the Councils response to
my complaint is and give me the opportunity to check their
response
with evidence I possess?

28/3/01 I do feel there are things in SMBC's letter to you that are
incorrect and require clarification but they may become academic
if
the period of SMBC's legal liability and indemnity does not extend
beyond 14/3/94 when the developer who was also the site owner,
took
possession. My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their
insurers about damage to my property which contained information
known to SMBC, at the time they issued these claims, to be untrue
and that they did this with the knowledge that they had no legal
liability to do so on either one or both of the occasions they did
so.

Clearly my complaint that the Council issued a claim based on
information known to them to be false at the time they issued the
claim has not been addressed. Do you intend to do so ?

I also refer you to Mr Oxleys statement in his letter to me dated
11/4/01 that "It is also a matter for the insurers to decide
whether any time limitation applies to your claim".

This statement is factually and legally incorrect on the basis that
the claim referred to was issued on the false information that it
was for damage caused to my property for which the Council had no
liability for and was allegedly linked to a previously false claim
for unspecified damage to my property.

You are of course aware that status barring is statute law and as
such cannot be affected by an insurance company, this is in fact
confirmed by the insurers themselves.

The fact that the Council assert they had no involvement with the
site concerned after 1/4/94 means that the alleged claim made by
myself for damage occurring after 21/4/94 was a false claim.

The assertion that ownership of the land was stated by the Council
to be unknown to the Council on 30th June 2000 is unlikely, the
ensuing claim by the Council to their insurers could not have been
made if the ownership on the land was not theirs as liability goes
with the ownership of the land. As you and the Council know.

It appears that the claim was issued either with the knowledge that
the land was not owned by the Council or that the claim was made
without the ownership of the land being established or that the
Council did in fact own the land.

The matter of ownership of the land, with regard to compensation,
was first raised on 31st May 2000 by the surveyor who conducted a
survey at my property on 19th May 2000. The Council then wrote to
me on 30th June 2000 to assert the ownership of the land was not
known to them. The Council had at that time, had a month to
ascertain the ownership of the land and yet had not done so,
implying they did not know that the land had been owned by
Maritime
Housing since 21st January 1994. The knowledge of ownership would
have also made a claim to their insurers impossible as liability
goes with ownership.

On 3rd October 2000 I wrote to the Land Registry requesting details
of ownership of the land concerned. On 6th October 2001 I received
the information that since 21st January 1994 the land had been in
the ownership of Maritime Housing.

The tactic employed by the Council is to ignore facts and
information supplied by myself, this tactic, it appears, is being
employed by your office as there seems to be no credibility given
to my complaint that the Council have and still are lying to me.
Nor is the fact that you clearly avoid revealing that the Council
have not provided the information that they were not liable or
insured for any damage to my property occurring after 14th March
1994 which is proven to be the period when damage occurred. To do
this you are ignoring the law, which I assert is irrational.

The Council asserted that I was told to write my letter of
complaint to them to re-open an insurance claim and this would
suspend time limitation. If this were true time limitation would
have been suspended. After consultation with the insurance section
of the Council Mr Williams stated that time limitation would be
decided by the insurers. The insurers state time limitation is a
matter for the courts. Is it credible that Mr Oxley and yourself
do
not know about time limitation ? With respect, I think not.

I refute the assertion that the letter I wrote to the Council
on18th April 2000 was a claim, it was written as a complaint as
the
result of being told by Mr Williams it would stop lime limitation.

I ask you to respond to all the above facts and explain why you
have not taken them into consideration before rejecting my
complaint.

THEN:

In March 2003 I obtained my personal data from Sefton Council which
revealed to me the basis of the fraudulent "Insurance Claim" I had
supposedly made against the Council in 1993 referenced W215732 and
its alleged "reopening of claim RR98XN dated April 18th 2000
which,
has been the subject of Sefton Council's letter to the Ombudsman
on
March 15th 2001, Clearly the situation had changed and I wanted
the
Ombudsmans decision reversed. I had enlisted my MP's help in this
matter and he had contacted the Ombudsman on my behalf:

ON JUNE 24TH 2003, MRS BELLWOOD OF YOUR OFFICE WROTE TO ME
REGARDING A "FURTHER COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL"...and stating ...WE NEED INFORMATION TO HELP US ACHIEVE
THIS."

I NOW REFER YOU TO A FURTHER LETTERS TO MR BARHAM AT YOUR OFFICE
REGARDING THE OMBUDSMANS DECISION ABOUT SEFTON COUNCIL'S
"INSURANCE
CLAIMS":

Letter to Mr Barham dated June 26th 2003:

Your Ref:03/C/04380/PIB

Probably in 1993 or 1994 Sefton MBC (SMBC) invented a claim against
themselves and credited it to myself. This claim was referenced
W215732.

In October 1999 I became aware of this claim when Maritime Housing
Association told me that SMBC had informed them that I had made
this claim in 1993. This claim was declared by SMBC to have been
for damage to my gable wall. When I challenged this assertion SMBC
refuted it by declaring that it was legitimate information
supplied
to Maritime under a contractual agreement and that it had been
supplied to them in "good faith."

On obtaining my data via the IC in March this year I discovered
that this claim is declared to be for damage to my property -
especially the gable wall - caused by the demolition of 21 Lime
Grove which SMBC declare was adjoined to my property at the time
it
was demolished in the 1960's.

As you see from the OS map I have sent you 21 Lime Grove was a
detached house and never adjoined number 19. My wife and I
purchased 19 Lime Grove in 1972 when 21 Lime Grove had been
demolished and maisonettes built in its place.

I ask that you have claim W215732 investigated and inform me of the
result as a matter of urgency, given the clear evidence that it
could not exist.

Letter to Mr Barham June 26th 2003

I refer to your telephone call on July 7th 2002.

Due to the long standing and serious nature of my compliant I do
not consider it appropriate to discuss it by telephone.

This matter requires that all the parties understand what has been
said to whom and, I must stress to you that part of the problem is
that in the past the lack of written confirmation has allowed this
matter to be manipulated by Sefton Council and others.

I regret this situation has arisen but had the matter been fully
investigated in the past, this would not be the case.

ON JULY 11TH 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON...HAS BEEN PASSED TO ME...I HAVE
SEEN A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE OMBUDSMAN TO MR J BENTON MP DATED
29 JANUARY 2002IN WHICH SHE SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN DECIDED NOT TO
INVESTIGATE YOUR COMPLAINT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HAD
PASSED...AND BECAUSE THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
YOU...AS
FAR AS I CAN SEE, THE ISSUES YOU ARE NOW BRINGING TO THE
OMBUDSMANS
ATTENTION APPEARS TO BE TO BE ABOUT THE SAME CONCERNS WHICH THE
OMBUDSMAN CONSIDERED TWO YEARS AGO...YOUR RECENT LETTER DOES NOT
GIVE THE OMBUDSMAN ANY REASON TO BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION INTO A
FURTHER COMPLAINT...I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE SENT MAY
ONLY RECENTLY HAVE COME TO LIGHT BUT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT
THAT YOU COULD HAVE MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE OMBUDSMAN WITHIN THE
NORMAL TWELVE MONTHS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974.
NOR
DOES IT ALTER THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
YOU. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THEREFORE THAT THE OMBUDSMAN HAS REASON TO
OPEN A NEW INVESTIGATION.

AND

July12th 2003:

Thank you for your letter dated 11th July 2003.

SMBC declared that by the demolition of an adjoining building in
the 1960's the former party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove
became the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove. This is untrue.

In October 1999 SMBC declared to Maritime Housing Association that
I had made a claim against SMBC with regard to the damage in 1993,
i.e. damage to my gable wall caused primarily by this demolition
in
the 1960's. This claim is referenced W215732 and is declared by
SMBC to Maritime to be for "cracking and deterioration to my gable
wall." This is untrue.

With regard to claim W215732, SMBC's insurance brokers wrote to me
on August 19th 2002 and declared that claim W215732 was with
regard
to an incident on January 1st 1994. This is untrue.

The misinformation regarding this alleged claim - W215732 - which
was supplied to Maritime by SMBC became the basis of my compliant
to SMBC on November 4th 1999 and to yourselves on January 30th
2000.

Clearly the determination of that complaint by yourselves was based
on deceitful information provided to Maritime and myself by SMBC.
Dated January 1994 - not 1993.

I would also point out to you that as no damage to my property was
caused by claim W215732 dated 1st January 1994, no legal remedy
could have been in existence regarding it.

I request that you copy all the evidence - including that sent
today - I have sent to you since June this year and return the
originals to me.

Enclosed. Maritimes Letter dated October 22nd 1999. Aon's Letter
dated August 19th 2002.

ON JULY 23RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I NOTE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD MADE
AN INSURANCE CLAIM...THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINT I CAN SEE, IS
THAT WHICH THE OMBUDSMAN HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND HAS DECLINED
TO
PURSUE FURTHER...I AM SENDING A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OF SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL TO LET HIM KNOW
THE POSITION."

AND

Mr Barham July 24th 2003

Thank you for your letter dated July 23rd 2003.

I wish to point out to you that your assertion that my complaint
has been dealt with and that the means to resolve it was to take
legal action is incorrect.

My complaint has never been dealt with as I had no knowledge of
claim W215732 until March this year.

SMBC clearly state that this claim was made by myself in 1993.

This is prior to any other alleged claim made by myself regarding
damage to my property on 1994.

Claim W215732 is in no way linked to any further claim as it
regarding alleged demolition in the 1960's which is proven could
have not damaged my property in the manner SMBC declare.

There is no legal action I can take regarding claim W215732 for
there is no damage to my property to claim for, nor any reason for
SMBC to deal with it.

My former solicitors confirm this and therefore your assertion that
my current complaint is "whether you had made an insurance claim"
is in error.

The fact is that I did not , nor could have made a claim regarding
W215732 as W215732 is an invention of SMBC which was then reported
to Maritime Housing Association in February 1999.

I enclose Mr Barrs assertion that primary damage was caused to my
property and is clearly false as is his assertion that my property
was formally mid terrace.

To be clear. I wish to make a complaint that this false claim
W215732 has nothing to support it in fact, and its invention is a
deliberate act of maladminisration, which despite my best efforts
was withheld from me for many years in the furtherance of claim
W215732 to my disadvantage.

Enclosed: Letter to MHA from Barr. Dated February 1999 Letter from
SMBC's CEO date May 1st 2002 Letter to SMBC's Legal Department.
Dated 26 November 2002 RSVP"

ON AUGUST 7TH 2003 MR HOBBS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

"MR BARHAMS LETTER OF 23 JULY GAVE THE REASON WHY THE OMBUDSMANS
DECIDED NOT TO PERUSE YOUR COMPLAINT. I HAVE READ THE PAPERS, AND
SEE NOTHING TO SUGGEST THE DECISION WAS WRONG...THE OMBUDSMAN
REMAINS UNABLE TO HELP YOU AND MR BARHAMS DECISION MUST STAND

On August 7th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed "Our Ref: W215732

Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We would respectfully reiterate that you refer this matter to your
legal advisor."

I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOBBS ON AUGUST 8TH 2003

Thank you for your letter dated August 7th 2003.

I note your position regarding the false claim W215732 and your
evident support of it, will you affirm this is the case.

I regard this as irrational and point out to you that claim W215732
is still being dealt with by SMBC as if it exists, it does not ,
nor ever has.

I request that you return to me all the copies of documents I have
sent to you over the past months and copies of my own letters to
yourselves.

On August 18th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can merely reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisor."

ON AUGUST 26TH 2003 SEFTON COUNCILS FINANCE DIRECTOR (with
constructive knowledge of my letters to the Ombudsman), WROTE (pp
Ms Swale), THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Further your letter dated 14th August 2003 regarding clarification
of claim W215732. I attach photocopies of the letters from your
solicitors dated 26th January 1995 and 29th November 1995 which
clearly state they are making a claim pon your behalf."

On September 1st 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can only reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisors as before."

ON AUGUST 21ST 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED, ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEFTON MBC EMPLOYEES:

"THE ABOVE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY A SENIOR DETECTIVE FROM THIS
AREA...AND OUR FORCE SOLICITOR. IT IS AND WILL REMAIN A CIVIL
MATTER. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY MORE CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU IN
RESPECT OF THIS CASE. THE COUNCIL IN THE FORM OF MR WILLIAMS
(TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR) CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS BEEN DEALING
WITH YOUR CASE AND ACCEPTS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FORMAL CLAIM IN
YOUR NAME. I SUGGEST THAT YOU REFER THE MATTER TO A SOLICITOR AND
THE DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE WILL BE KEPT FOR SIX YEARS PENDING ANY
CIVIL ACTION YOU MAY TAKE."

ON SEPTEMBER 2ND 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOPE AT AON:

As you know from 2 unanswered letters to yourselves dated May 19th
and July 12th 2002, (both copied to Merseyside Police as this
letter will be) several senior members of SMBC, have affirmed to
me
that claim W215732 is a claim made by my solicitors in relation to
a letter from my solicitors dated January 26th 1995 regarding
damage to my property. The damage my solicitors refer to was that
caused by the demolition of the maisonettes at Kepler Street,
Seaforth, Liverpool between March 14th and April 6th 1994 and
notified by me to SMBC on April 6th 1994. This alleged damage was
acknowledged pp by Mr Barr on April 15th 1994 and is affirmed by
both SMBC and Royal & SunAlliance to be the responsibility of
Fawley.

On February 27th 1996 Ms E Smith Senior Claims Officer SMBC
contacted you by Fax regarding claim W215732. She sent you a memo
referenced W215732 sent to her by Mr Barr dated February 27th
1996.

In his memo Mr Barrs affirms that.

"Mr Robinson did not claim that his problems had been caused by
either the demolition or redevelopment contract," and that. "The
problem occurred sometime before either the demolition or
redevelopment contract" and that the problem was related to. "Work
carried out on what was presumably a former party wall and is now
the gable wall of the dwelling."

You formulated a series of questions from and, based on Mr Barrs
memo to be sent to my solicitors

On March 8th 1996 you wrote to Ms Smith in a letter headed, Claim
No W215732 Robinson, and enclosing your proposed reply to my
solicitors - W215732/TSH/BN/lt7 March 20th 1996 - your letter
clearly refers to the alleged damage to my property caused when
the
party wall was transformed into a gable wall -

"the work carried out on what is now the gable wall of 19 Lime
Grove"

- and therefore, claim W215732 is with regard to the alleged
transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove into
a gable wall - which neither Fawley or GTB Demolition Ltd were
involved in as it never occurred - and not the damage caused by
the
demolition of the maisonettes

I formally ask that you confirm claim W215732 was not with regard
to damage to my property caused by the demolition of the
maisonettes at Kepler Street in March 1994 but damage allegedly
caused by the transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21
into a gable wall at some earlier time and, evidently was made in
1993 based on letters I wrote to SMBC at that time. I also request
that you inform me if claim W215732 was a formal claim against
SMBC.

I enclose an OS map of 19 and 21 Lime Grove from the 1960's proving
unequivocally that no such transformation of a party wall into a
gable wall could have occurred, and Mr Barrs affirmation to my
Solicitors dated March 7th 1995 declaring survey information about
this damage (which was, and never could have been taken) indicated
this damage had occurred prior to 1994.

ON SEPTEMBER 3RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER RECEIVED ON 11 AUGUST. WHEN I WROTE TO
YOU ON 23 JULY I SENT YOU COPIES OF ALL THE PAPERS YOU HAD SENT US
SINCE JUNE WHICH WAS YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH US THIS YEAR. I AM
NOW
ENCLOSING COPIES OF ALL THE LETTERS AND OTHER PAPERS YOU HAVE SENT
US SINCE 23 JULY 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2003 IN A LETTER REFERENCED W215732, AON'S MR HOPE
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM AON,S MANCHESTER ADDRESS:

"I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MATTER IS NOW BEING DEALT WITH BY OUR
OFFICE IN SHEFFIELD AND THEY WROTE TO YOU ON 1ST SEPTEMBER 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 5TH 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I HAVE FULLY INVESTIGATED YOUR ALLEGATIONS OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL
CONDUCT BY SEFTON MBC'S EMPLOYEES AFTER OUR MEETING ON 22 JULY.
YOUR ALLEGATIONS SURROUND THE FACT THAT REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY
THEN TO A 'CLAIM' THAT THEY ALLEGE YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST THEM. YOU
DISPUTE EVER HAVING MADE ANY CLAIM. AS A RESULT OF OUR MEETING I
CONTACTED MR WILLIAMS FROM SEFTON MBC. HE INFORMED ME THAT LETTERS
THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN TO THEM HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A CLAIM AGAINST
THEM. I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN THIS
MATTER AND I TELEPHONED YOU THE FOLLOWING DAY AND LEFT A MESSAGE
ON
YOUR ANSAPHONE, AS YOU REQUESTED, TO THAT EFFECT. THIS IS THE END
OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY FURTHER
COMMUNICATION WITH YOU IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER AND I SUGGEST YOU
CONTACT A SOLICITOR IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER ADVICE:

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MRS THOMAS THE LGO:

On December 18th 2000 I wrote the following to you:-

"There is now another issue that I wish to make a complaint about,
this is that the Council have issued a 'claim' or 'potential
claim'
to their insurers in regard to my property, based on information
known by then to be false."

This was acknowledged on December 21st 2000.

This became formal complaint: 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc - then
00/C/17558/CSO/pmc, which was rejected by your office.

The only reason for this rejection - that I was ever informed of -
was contained in a letter, written to Mr Oxley by Sefton Councils
Legal Director, Mr Bownes on March 15th 2001, which I contested,
but was evidently not considered by yourselves, i.e. on March 27th
2001 I wrote the following to Mr Oxley:-

"My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their insurers about
damage to my property which contained information known to SMBC,
at
the time they issued these claims, to be untrue."

Will you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that this letter
from Mr Bownes to Mr Oxley of March 15th 2001, confirming that
these claims had been made, was the only reason for the rejection
of complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc - 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc.

The matter of false claims is now in the hands of the court and I
need to confirm that I have had complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc
rejected on the basis of Mr Bownes letter.

ON OCTOBER 6TH 2003 MRS THOMAS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I CANNOT SEND YOU ANY INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH HAS
ALREADY BEEN SENT TO YOU. NOR CAN I ALLOW ANY MORE OF MY OFFICERS
TIME TO BE SPENT ON THIS MATTER. FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU
MAY NOT RECEIVE A REPLY."

ON OCTOBER 15TH 2003 ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO
'STEVE', AND COPIED TO SEFTON'S MS SMITH UNDER THE REFERENCE'S
W215732 (JANUARY 1ST 1994) AND RR98XN (JANUARY 17TH 1994)."

"I ENCLOSE A COPY OF MR ROBINSONS LATEST LETTER WHICH WE RECENTLY
RECEIVED TOGETHER WITH OUR RESPONSE ON 10 OCTOBER. IN VIEW OF THE
LONG STANDING CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY FURTHER
CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR ROBINSON,"

ON OCTOBER 30TH 2003 MY SOLICITORS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE N MY BEHALF:

"WE WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD CLARIFY WHETHER YOUR
REFERENCE RR98XN, IS IN FACT A REFERENCE TO A CLAIM WHICH ALSO HAS
THE CLAIM NUMBER RR98XN."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 ROYAL 7 SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MY
SOLICITORS:

"in response to your query "W215732" is the reference used by our
insureds brokers, Aon to identify this particular matter. our
reference for the same matter is "RR98XN". there was a previous
reference or claim number that was used in connection with this
matter by ourselves and that was "31/AT01939/96".

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 SEFTONS DATA PROTECTION OFFICER RECEIVED THE
FOLLOWING IN A LETTER TO HER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
REGARDING MY DATA SUBJECT APPLICATION FOR MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
FROM1994 REFERENCED 03_36590/06/AD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO
ME IN MARCH 2003, AD STATED:

"MR ROBINSON HAS ALLEGED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED A COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO HIS SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST///MR ROBINSON CONTENDS THAT
HE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY INFORMATION FROM 1994...MR
HUFF'S...RESPONSE TO MR ROBINSON CONCERNS THAT MISSING INFORMATION
FROM 1994...A NUMBER OF INFERENCES COULD BE TAKEN FROM MR HUFF'S
RESPONSE. THESE INCLUDE:

THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994.

THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED BY
AN EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE DPA.

ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD RELATED TO 1994 IS NOT HELD AS PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

I WOULD BE GRATEFUL, THEREFORE, FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY MR
ROBINSON HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD ABOUT
HIM FROM 1994..I WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDED ME WITH
CLARIFICATION...HE IS ENTITLED TO A RESPONSE WITHIN THE NEXT 28
DAYS."

ON NOVEMBER 26TH 2003 MR BENTON MP WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Correspondence that I have copied to Council Officers was in an
effort to work with them to try to resolve your ongoing
problems...it-is only by copying your letters to the Council that
the gist of your complaints and queries could be adaquatly relayed
to them."

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2003, WITH REGARD TO A COMPLAINT I HAD MADE TO MY
SOLICITORS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE, THEY WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING AN HOUR LONG TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I
HAD
HAD WITH THEM:

"YOU WILL RECALL...I ADVISED YOU TO WRITE TO ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
AND SEFTON REQUESTING CONFIRMATION AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE PREPARED
TO PROVIDED YOU WITH DETAILS OF ANY CLAIM WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT BY YOURSELF AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS...IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 14 DAYS THEN YOU
WOULD ASSUME THAT NO SUCH ACTION EXISTED AND FURTHERMORE YOU WOULD
RELY UPON THOSE LETTERS WHEN ATTENDING BEFORE A DISTRICT JUDGE."

THESE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN AND NO EVIDENCE OF WAS, OR EVER HAS BEEN
PROVIDED BY SEFTON TO JUSTIFY CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993, JANUARY
1ST
AND 17TH 1994 (RR98XN).

ON JANUARY 28TH 2004 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE TO ME, WITH REGARD
TO CLAIM RR98XN DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994, STATING:

"WE HAVE SENT YOU ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION DATA IN NOVEMBER
2003 IT IS THEREFORE THERE IS NO WITHHELD 'DATA' TO SEND TO YOU."

SUBSEQUENTLY BOTH SEFTON (ON MAY 1ST 2002) AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE
(ON AUGUST 7TH 2001) VERIFIED SEFTON CEASED TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY
THEM ON DECEMBER 14TH 1993 WHEN THEY "LOST CONTROL OF THE LAND TO
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION."

ALL THESE FACTS ARE WELL KNOWN TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RICHARD ROSCOE

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT SEFTON KNEW IN FEBRUARY 2003:

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR JANUARY 24TH 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Freedom of Information
legislation now in force. I request copies of ALL my correspondence
to the Council to check what you have and have not received to
compare it with the information you send. I request ALL information
you hold on any claims and settlement of claims held by your
Finance Department and allegedly made by myself.

LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL 1ST FEBRUARY 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Data Protection legislation now
in force. I request copies of all my correspondence with regard to
claims and settlement of claims held by your Finance Department,
also information of how the alleged settlement of a claim,
regarding my gable wall in 1997, referred to by Mr Barr on January
2000, (Ref: GRB/JBJ/HSG1187) was made and to whom ? I have none of
this correspondence. I also request a copy of a letter from the
Council to Maritime Housing stating I had made a claim for damage
to my gable wall in 1993.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS FEBRUARY 8TH 2003

With regard to my request for ALL information I am entitled to
under the DATA PROTECTION ACT I enclose a cheque for £10 which I
believe is the correct fee. I especially request that ALL
information regarding claims against the Council and their
settlement be forwarded to me with any correspondence regarding
these claims that was sent to third parties and any notes which
were added to files or computer records.

LETTER TO SEFTON FEBRUARY 14TH 2003

Will you write to me and confirm that you have received both my
application and payment of £10 for information under the DATA
PROTECTION ACT, dated February 8th 2003.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 20TH 2003

I asked not only for information held by the finance department. I
asked for ALL information I was entitled to under the data
protection act to be provided. This means All information not only
that held with regard to claims held by the Finance Department as
you appear to believe. I have been told by the Finance department a
summons was issued against me regarding Council Tax;- Summons No
2340104 at - The Law Court, Albert Road, Southport. I have written
to the court and they state "the summons No you have quoted does
not relate to one of our cases". Consequently I will not be
attending court.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 22ND 2003

I formally request that SMBC's letter to MHA, dated between 1st and
10th February 1999, be provided to me as part of my request, and
payment, for information under the Data Protection Act. I believe
that the Council has committed breaches of The Data Protection Act
and ask that you give a reasoned respond to the following to
explicate the matter.

Background

1. In about June 1993 I visited Sefton Councils (SMBC) Planning
department and saw plans for a proposed development of a new
housing estate on land adjacent to my property. This was proposed
to occur after the demolition of buildings adjoining my property
then in situ on the land. These plans show the gardens of the
proposed houses extending to my gable wall - evidently after the
removal of a nib wall and footings.

2. In August and September 1993 I expressed concern in writing to
SMBC I stated it appeared, from the plans, a nib wall and old
footings abutting my gable wall were to be removed during the
forthcoming development. On October 1st 1993, SMBC (Mr Barr) told
me the nib wall and footings abutting my gable wall should not be
interfered with during the development. This fully resolved the
matter.

3. On March 7th 1994 SMBC (Mr Barr) arranged to survey and
photographed my property. The nib wall is shown on some of these
photographs. This survey does not record any damage, cracking or
deterioration to my gable wall. At the outset of demolition of
buildings adjoining my property - [which occurred between March
14th and April 6th 1994] - the nib wall and footings were
photographed in situ.

4. On April 6th and 21st 1994 I reported to SMBC that my property
had been damaged during the demolition of the adjoining buildings -
[It was acknowledged on April 15th 1994 (pp Mr Barr), the one dated
April 21st 1994 was not.] There was no mention of demolition of a
nib wall in this correspondence. - [The nib wall was witnessed by
SMBC's contractors in situ on April 21st 1994.]

5. On July 4th 1998 I wrote to my solicitors reporting latent
damage to my property due to the demolition of the nib wall. This
damage was located at the point where the nib wall had been.

6. On January 27th 1999 I wrote to Maritime Housing Association
(MHA) regarding my property.

7. On February 1st 1999: MHA's Director of Development and Property
Services. (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that MHA's records showed the
land had been transferred to them in "mid 1995" and, citing SMBC as
their consultants, stated he would write to SMBC regarding the nib
wall. - [Between February 1st and 10th 1999 SMBC had clearly
responded to MHA.]

8. On February 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle,) after receiving
correspondence from SMBC, wrote to me with regard to the nib wall,
that. "Matters surrounding this particular wall began as early as
1993."

9. On March 4th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that ;- It was
Fawley Construction Ltd - MHA's building contractor. - "Who was
responsible for our development at Kepler Street."

We (MHA and Fawley) are "all convinced that the "nib" wall was not
in existence when we took possession of the site." - [Possession
has been given by MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994.]

That I should be aware that MHA. "Were not responsible for the
demolition of the maisonette blocks which previously occupied the
site, following demolition by Sefton Council."

That "On the evidence I have it would appear, therefore, that the
"nib" wall was removed during the demolition contract." - [This
evidence would appear to be, based on SMBC\s letter of February
1999 to MHA attesting that SMBC were responsible for the damage to
my property caused by the demolition of the nib wall and, had
demolished it and the adjoining buildings in 1993 and, had owned it
until "mid 1995."]

That "I am taking the opportunity of copying this letter to Mr G
Barr at Sefton Council, so that he is fully aware of the
correspondence that has passed between us."

10. On March 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) confirms that; "The
demolition of the maisonette blocks was carried out, under contract
by Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. I have previously confirmed that
this Association took possession of a cleared site."

"I am aware now of the nature of your enquiry, in that you are
alleging the "nib" wall was demolished after the site was cleared."

"Once again I am taking the opportunity of copying both your letter
and my response to George Barr at Sefton and also to Fawley
Construction." - [Thus SMBC (Mr Barr) knew in March 1999 that I was
alleging the nib wall was not demolished during the demolition of
buildings adjoining my Property in 1993 and, MHA were holding SMBC
responsible for its demolition prior to their possession.]

11.On October 22nd 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote stating he had.
"Found a letter from Sefton, written to me in February 1999 in
which it is stated;" - [From the above it was apparently written by
Mr Barr.]

"The whole issue of damage to your gable wall appears to go back to
1993."

"That you had a claim against Sefton Council at that time." [i.e.
In 1993.]

That this claim was due to. "Cracking and deterioration of your
gable wall" which had occurred due to. "Demolition of adjoining
buildings".

This letter from MHS to myself quotes verbatim from my
correspondence with SMBC dated August and September 1993. This
correspondence was written solely regarding SMBC's apparent
proposal to demolish the nib wall and remove the footings. - [There
was no demolition adjoining my property in 1993. No mention of the
nib wall is made between 1994 and 1998.]

12. On November 24th 1999 SMBC's Director of Technical Services (Mr
Williams, Mr Barrs superior) states, regarding SMBC's
correspondence to MHA of February 1999 that;

"As the appointed agents of Maritime Housing in respect of the
redevelopment scheme we have a contractual obligation to provide
information to them in respect of work carried out on their behalf;
and also in respect of any matter material to their interest in the
land being developed."

"Mr Barr had, on behalf of Sefton merely complied with his
contractual obligations."

That this information was supplied by SMBC to MHA in "good faith."
- [I also refer you to correspondence to Messrs Barr, Williams and
Heywood, SMBC's CEO, dated respectively; Barr
16/10/99-30/10/99-6/12/99. Williams 29/11/99. Heywood 18/1/00.]

Conclusions

With regard to the above it appears that the Council have breached
the following Principles of "The Data Protection Act 1998." The
reference numbers I use in brackets below are from the December
2001 issue of the "Legal Guide to the Data Protection Act". I
presume you are is au fait with the above1998 Legal Guide.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent (3.1.5)
to disclose to MHA the personal date (2.2) contained in my letters
of 1993 to them.

(ii) That it was known to SMBC that the provision of this personal
data to MHA was regarded by myself as being prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data was not provided to MHA in a fair and lawful manner
(3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not protect my vital interests, in fact it
worked against them. This I stated to SMBC in November 1999.

(iv) That the data provided to a third party (MHA) was not provided
within a reasonable timescale (3.1.7.7)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had obtained the data in 1993 for
the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent proposed
demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This matter was
fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October 1st 1993.

(ii) The data was used for a different, incompatible, unfair and
unlawfully purpose (3.1. 4) when it was stated by SMBC to MHA in
February 1999 to have been the basis of a claim for damage to my
property in 1993 which had not occurred in 1993.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to MHA for.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a claim. This incorrect and misleading assertion
was not withdrawn by Mr Williams in November 1999 (3.4 [b].)

Fifth Principle: (3.5) The data was kept for longer that it was
necessary for the purpose it was provided for. - i.e. 6 years.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me.

Seventh Principle: (3.7) The data which was passed to MHA by SMBC
was done so in an unauthorised and unlawful manner.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 26TH 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th and 22nd
February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled to
under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with my previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurance managers AON.

Background 1. I have been notified by AON. (Mr Pearson, Claims
Adjuster) that, with regard to an "incident" dated January 1st
1994, a "public liability claim" (My Ref: W215732) was issued to
AON by SMBC. It is evident that this claim contained data which
caused AON to write to me advising me that I "seek legal advice in
connection with the same". This claim would appear to be connected
with damage to my property.

2. As January 1st 1994 was a bank holiday it is extremely unlikely
that any work was carried out on that day by SMBC - or anybody else
on its behalf - that would have given SMBC the legitimate reason to
send data, which identified me to AON, regarding the "incident"
alluded to and on which I should take - "legal advice."

3. Regarding the date of January 1st 1994, again, as it was a bank
holiday, there would have been no post that day and, therefore, it
may be that the claim for the "incident" had been delayed in the
Christmas post and, was the alleged claim notified to MHA in
February 1999 by SMBC as damage to my "gable wall," caused by the
"demolition of building adjoining my property in 1993".

4. If the "incident" reported to AON occurred on the land adjoining
my property, i.e. the Kepler Street site, and was that which
damaged my "gable wall" and was caused by the demolition of
"adjoining building in 1993" by SMBC. It is abundantly clear that,
that "incident" occurred prior to December 24th 1993 because, for
SMBC to make a legitimate public liability claim. This claim would
have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public liability
indemnity and any contractual obligation to AON - e.g. for any
claims regarding the land, a nib wall or my gable wall - ceasing on
December 24th 1993 and liability passing from SMBC to MHA on
[allegedly] December 24th 1993. [See letters to me from; MHA dated
February 1st 1999, Mr Williams dated September 26th 2000, Ms Swale
dated June 19th and August 8th 2001 and Mr Heywood dated May 1st
2002.]

I request that the data supplied to AON, which established January
1st 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent to me as part of
my request and payment for information under the Data Protection
Act.

Conclusion With regard to data supplied by SMBC to AON, which
clearly allowed AON to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached
The Date Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again
in brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to AON the personal data (2.2) [whether
true or false] to them.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to AON [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to AON by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) the data supplied to AON by SMBC [whether true or false,] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) If SMBC had obtained the data in 1993
for the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent
proposed demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This
matter was fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October
1st 1993.

(ii) If (i) above is true. The data was used for a different,
incompatible, unfair and unlawfully purpose (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to AON to have been the basis of a public liability
claim, which may have been for damage to my property in 1993. NB,
SMBC have not given me a reason for this claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to AON by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to SMBC for, i.e. the resolution of SMBC's intentions regarding the
nib wall and footings.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to AON by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a public liability claim.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 1ST 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th 22nd and
26th February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled
to under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurers Royal SunAlliance (RSA.)

Background

1. I have been notified by RSA of a "public liability claim" (Claim
Number RR98XN,) with regard to an "incident" dated January 17th
1994 and told it was being handled by RSA on behalf of SMBC. RSA
gave me no indication what this claim was for. It is evident that
this claim contained data which allowed RSA to write to me asking
me to advise them if I was "represented in this claim". This
"incident", i.e. event or occurrence, would appear to be connected
with damage to my property on January 17th 1994.

2. As January 17th 1994 was, and still is, given by RSA as the
"incident" date regarding a public liability claim against SMBC, it
would appear the data that was supplied to RSA came from SMBC and
allowed RSA to identify me from it.

3. The reason for this public liability claim to RSA is not known
to me, however, It is abundantly clear that, the "incident" - which
occurred on January 17th 1994 - could not be the subject of a
legitimate public liability claim by SMBC because, for SMBC to make
a legitimate public liability claim. The "incident" which caused
the claim would have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public
liability indemnity ceasing on December 24th 1993 and, as you know,
liability passing from SMBC to MHA on December 24th 1993. [See
SMBC's (Mr Heywood, CEO) letter to me dated May 1st 2002.]

I request that the data supplied to RSA, identifying me and,
causing January 17th 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent
to me as part of my request and payment for information under the
Data Protection Act.

Conclusion

With regard to data supplied by SMBC to RSA, which clearly allowed
RSA to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached The Date
Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again in
brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to RSA my alleged personal data (2.2)
[whether true or false] to them, i.e. that I had made a claim.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to RSA [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to RSA by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC [whether true or false] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had not obtained the data
regarding an incident dated January 17th 1994 from myself or
anybody representing me, therefore by that virtue it could not be
used in a compatible, fair and lawfully manner (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to RSA to have been the basis of a public liability
claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1.)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 5TH 2003

I write with regard to false and misleading and damaging
information supplied by the Council (SMBC) to Fawley Construction
Ltd and my former solicitors Canter Levin & Berg (CLB) between
January and March 1995 and Mr Benton MP on January 12th 2000.

1. In November 1991 a survey was conducted on my property by a
structural surveyor. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. He noted the gables structural fragility due to it
being free standing.

2. On February 7th and 16th 1994 I wrote to SMBC noting that
"demolition has now started on the development" and warning SMBC -
with regard to 1 above - of the problems demolition of adjoining
building may cause to my property especially my gable wall. This
demolition was the commencement of the first phase of the
development of the Kepler Street site. SMBC acknowledged my letters
on February 28th 1994.

3.On March 7th 1994 SMBC - as a result of 2 - above conducted a
survey of my property. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC knew the
development of the Kepler Street site had commenced prior to March
7th 1994 and at that time their own survey proved that there was no
damage to my gable wall.

4. Between March 14th and April 6th 1994 my property was damaged by
the demolition of buildings adjoining my property. On April 6th and
21st 1994 I notified and described this damage to SMBC's Technical
Services. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC's Technical
Services knew that my property was damaged by the demolition of
adjoining buildings between March 14th and April 6th 1994.

5. On April 15th 1994 SMBC's Technical Services acknowledged the
damage in 4 above. On October 24th 1994 I had this damage
quantified by a structural surveyor. Using SMBC's survey, taken on
March 7th 1994 during the development, he found some 30 changes for
the worse in my property. He recommended, in order to prevent a
claim, SMBC be contacted to ask them to provide a grant to repair
my property.

6. On January 26th 1995 my solicitors wrote to SMBC solely
regarding my structural surveyors report and my correspondence of
April 1994. Both regarding damage caused by the demolition of
buildings adjoining my property between March 14th and April 6th
1994. They suggested meeting to discuss the matter.

7. On February 17th 1995 SMBC (Mr Waddelow) wrote to CLB stating
that "damage if attributable to development is essentially a matter
between Householders and the developer concerned" The matter was
then passed to Technical Services. At this time Technical Services
had constructive knowledge my property had been damaged during
development due to my letters of April 1994.

8. Technical Services referred the matter to Fawley, MHA's
builders. Mr Fawley visited me on March 1st 1995 and states that
his visit was prompted by "a letter Sefton Council had received
from your solicitors dated 26th January 1995 regarding the
condition of your gable wall." He also states that I had told him
regarding my gable wall that "considerable worsening had occurred
during the demolition of the adjoining buildings." - There is no
mention of cracks to my gable wall in CLB's letter to SMBC of
January 26th 1995.

9. On March 7th 1995 Mr Barr stated to CLB that survey information
was taken of the property before redevelopment. In effect Mr Barr
is stating the survey by SMBC - taken on March 7th 1994 - had
occurred prior to development. - Mr Barr states that a claim for
damage to my gable wall was "settled off" in 1997.

11. On March 4th 1999, in a letter copied to Mr Barr, MHA (Mr
Quayle) states they have evidence that the demolition of buildings
adjoining my property occurred prior to their possession of the
site. - This evidence, which is clearly untrue, is confirmed by
MHA's CEO as being obtained by discussions with SMBC and Fawley and
from MHA's, SMBC's and Fawleys records. It will not be confirmed by
SMBC or Fawley.

Under 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the Data Protection Act - Date Subject
Notice. I request that SMBC ceases to process any information you
have obtained from Fawley Construction Ltd regarding myself as it
is untrue and misleading and has, and is likely to, cause me damage
and distress. I request that you notify all the other parties it
has been passed to that it is misleading and untrue. I also request
that SMBC ceases to process the information that a claim by me
regarding my gable wall was settled off in 1997 as it is untrue and
misleading, and inform my MP Mr Benton and any other parties it has
been passed to of this fact.

I request that you send me details of any further rights of access
to information under the Freedom of Information Act which may have
come into effect in March 2003, or where I may obtain a copy of
them.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 6TH 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Letter to Ms Elwood Seftons legal Director March 6th 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

ALMOST EVERYTHING I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EXTRACT FROM THE MANY
AUTHORITIES OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO IS ROOTED IN A FALSE
INSURANCE CLAIM REFERENCED W215732 DATED 1993, A CLAIM ALLEGEDLY
MADE BY ME AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT FALSE CLAIM, MANY
"AUTHORITIES" HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN AND BECOME INSTRUMENTAL IN
ASSISTING SEFTON IN THE CONCEALMENT OF, OR THE UPHOLDING OF THIS
INANE UNFOUNDED CLAIM, AND THE OTHER FRAUDULENT CLAIMS THAT FLOWED
FROM IT.

THIS IS INEVITABLY DONE BY "AUTHORITIES" EITHER PROVIDING ME WITH
FALLACIOUS INFORMATION WHICH, WILL NOT, EVEN WHEN THE "AUTHORITIES"
ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE EVIDENCE OF ITS UNTENABILITY ADMIT ITS
FALLACIOUS, AND CENSURE ME FOR ATTEMPTING TO HAVE IT DISCLOSED OR
PASS IT AROUND LIKE THE BAD SMELL IT IS IN THE HOPE IT WILL NOT
COME BACK, OR LIKE THE IC AND SEFTON, ACT AS IF IT IS I WHO AM IN
THE WRONG AND VEXATIOUS FOR DARING TO ASK FOR THE INFORMATION AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH NO CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE BEING GIVEN OR,
BEING TOLD THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVENTHE INFORMATION.

AUTHORISES LIKE THE IC, WHO DENIED ME OF MY RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON
SEFTON'S BEHALF, CULMINATING WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CONTENTION
THAT IT WAS NOT HELD IN A 'RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM' WHEN, SEFTON -
IF NOT THE COMMISSION - KNEW, IT WAS NOT HELD AT ALL AS IT WAS ,
APART FROM A HANDFUL OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994, NONE
EXISTENT.

THE COVERT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO SEFTON BY THE COMMISSION,
ALLOWED SEFTON TO UPHOLD THE FALLACIOUS CONTENTION THAT I MADE AN
INSURANCE CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON IN 1993 TO REMAIN THE PRIME CAUSE OF
WHY MY HOUSE HAS A CHARGE ON IT BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND I OWE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO SEFTON COUNCIL AND OTHER PARTIES WHO
HAVE AIDED THEM, AGAIN, ALL DUE TO CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993.

IF THE REAL BILL TO THE PUBLIC FOR EVERTHING THAT HAS FLOWED FROM
THAT FALSE CLAIM, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT SALE OF LAND AND TIME WASTED,
WAS ADDED UP. IT MUST BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS BY
NOW WITH NO END IN SIGHT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

MY PERSONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN CYNICALLY PASSED FROM ONE
AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER FOR YEARS, INCLUDING PASSING BETWEEN THE IC
AND SEFTON MBC TO MY HUGE DISADVANTAGE AND COST.

THE ONLY WEAPON A CITIZEN HAS IS ACCURATE INFORMATION TO DEFEAT
AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE A HORRIBLE EFFECTS ON HIS HIS LIFE.

IT IS THEREFORE A GRIM IRONY THAT THE BODY CHARGED WITH THE
PROVISION OF INFORMATION, SEEKS TO DENY ITS ACCESS ON THE SAME
BASIS AS SEFTON AND THE COURTS - VEXATION.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE VEXATION I HAVE BEEN PUT TO BY THE ACTIVITIES
OF BOTH "AUTHORITIES NONE DISCLOSURE OF MY PERSONAL DATA AT THE
RELEVANT TIME.

I KNOW ITS HARD FOR A PERSON TO CONTEMPLATE DISMISSLE FROM YOUR JOB
AND PERHAPS CRIMINAL CHARGES, BUT THATS NOT MY FAULT AS THAT PERSON
CHOSE TO DO AS HE, OR SHE DID.

NOR SHOULD IT BE SEEN TO BE BY THE CONSTANT DENIAL OF ONE SIMPLE
TRUTH THAT WILL UNDO THE MATTER.

THAT SIMPLE TRUTH LIES AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND IS:

HOW COULD I HAVE MADE A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS WHEN I LIVED IN A MID TERRACE LOCATION IN LIME
GROVE ?

WHICH LEADS TO, THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE LAND REGISTRY PROVIDING ME
WITH FALSE TITLE PLANS AND SUPPORT THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE
ADJOINED AND THE OS DENYING THEIR OWN MAPPING.

TURNING TO YOUR E-MAIL BELOW FEIGNING IGNORANCE OF THE CONSTANT
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COMMISSION FOR YEARS:

Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 December, however it is
not clear what further information you are seeking. In your email
you ask how we can conclude that a request can be deemed to be
vexatious under the FOIA without knowing the identity of “an
authority.” In your email of 19 December you had asked us to
“please confirm or deny that a first time request, that has never
been asked before and, therefore, never been answered within the
confines of the Act, can be vexatious under any section of the
Act.” This is a general question about the Act itself and not about
the decision of a particular public authority and thus in answering
it we would not need to know the identity of any authority as the
Act applies the same to all public authorities.

TO ANSWER PART OF THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE FOIA AND DPA:

Two of he "authority" were the "IC's" Mr Andrew Damm's who engaged
in correspondence with the other "authority" Sefton Council
regarding two boxes of my data allegedly from 1994 held by Sefton.

Ultimately Sefton used and passed onto Royal & SunAlliance, the
contention - given to them by Mr Damms - that my information from
1994 fell under the 'Durant' ruling as it was not held in a
relevant filing system and consisting of some 700 documents held by
Sefton's Technical Services and Insurance Sections.

The evidence provided by Mr Damns was referred to by myself in
claim W215732 on April 16th 2005 preventing Sefton from using it
with regard to 'Durant' it in the same manner as Royal &
SunAlliance had done in February 2005 to deny me access to my
personal data held by them regarding another fraudulent claim
RR98XN dated January 17th 1994 and, appear to have persuaded two
District Judge's, to strike out my claims against both Sefton and
Royal & SunAlliance on the basis of 'Durant" and deny me access to
my personal information to the font of my January 1994 'claims'.

I HAVE RECENTLY MADE FIRST TIME FOI REQUESTS TO THE IC, AND SEFTON
REGARDING THE TIME WHEN THE PROPER DISCLOSURE TO ME SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MADE REGARDING THEIR "COVERT CORRESPONDENCE" AND MEETINGS THEM
REGARDING MY DPA APPLICATION - ALLEGEDLY REGARDING 700 DOCUMENTS
DATED 1994.

BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE IC NOW RELY ON EACH OTHER NOT TO CONFIRM
OR DENY WHAT IN FACT THEY KNOW AND IT WILL COME TO TRANSPIRE THAT
ANY ACTION SEFTON TAKE IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY FOI REQUESTS, NOT
ONLY WILL, BUT MUST, BE SUPPORTED BY THE IC AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE
PAST AND WHO KNOWS - EVEN NOW THERE MAY BE COVERT INFORMATION
FLOWING BETWEEN THE IC AND THE COUNCIL AGAIN IN PREPARATION.

FOR YOUR FURTHER INFORMATION - SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM 2003 TO
2005 REGARDING THESE 700 DOCUMENTS NOT HELD IN A "RELATIVE FILING
SYSTEM" AND THE PERNICIOUS EFFECT OF THE CONCEALMENT OF WHAT THE IC
AND SEFTON KNEW, AND COLLUDED ABOUT DURING THAT TIME.

As you see below I am reliant on the information being fed to me by
the being true.

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

I still await a response to my allegations of breaches of the act
which was promised to me by the Councils Legal Director on March
4th 2003. I would point out that there are many letters to and from
the Housing and Environmental Departments missing from my data.
Will you send them? I most especially request a copy of my letter
to the Council dated 17/12/98 and responded to by DSOM/402/98/CG on
22/12/98. RSVP

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

I refer you to past correspondence regarding the assertion by the
Council I am not entitled to data you hold on me. I have been
informed by the information commission today that you are in breach
of the act. I have requested ALL of the information I am entitled
to and this has not been provided. I have also been told my
assertions, you have breached the act, would be addressed, this has
not occurred. I have requested an explanation of this and have
received none. I contend that the information I seek is being
withheld against my right to obtain it with the purpose of avoiding
censure. I formally request you address these matters and inform me
why you believe I am not entitled to the information I have
requested and, to address the matter of breaches of the act.

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

With regard to my recent application under The Data Protection Act,
I formally request that you provide me with ALL copies of my
correspondence with the following Council Departments between the
dates I now provide. I am told by The Information Commission that
you cannot assume I have my own copies. I request copies of my
correspondence with:

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

The Environmental Protection Department (Mr Cannon) between May
2001 and December 2002.

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

Building Control Services (Mr Woods and Mr Edgerton and Mr Heywood
CEO - related to this correspondence) between September and
November 2000 also that to Ms Gillard, Housing Maintenance, Pendle
Drive, Litherland.

I still await a copy of my letter to the Council dated 17/12/98
which was answered by Mr Mc Lennan on December 22nd 1998, ref:
DSMO/402/98/CG.

I look forward to the provision of these copies and a response to
my correspondence with you dated 10/4/03 - 25/5/03 - 15/5/03.

I REMIND YOU THAT THE DATA (MUCH OF IT FALSE) YOU HOLD WITH REGARD
TO MYSELF IS PART OF A 'SET' AND PARTS OF IT CANNOT BE WITHHELD, I
THEREFORE REQUEST ALL OF MY CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994 TO MR BOARDMAN
AND MR BARR BE COPIES TO ME. [6 items]

NB I would also request any 'fax' messages and memos associated
with the above on the basis that these are also part of a 'set' of
data. I also request ALL documents to and from third parties with
regard to the above.

I wish to complain that some documents sent to me already have been
'cropped', this appears to have been done to remove information
from them. The normal copying process does not reduce the size of
the copy paper.

LETTER TO MR HUFF NOVEMBER 1ST 2003: DATA PROTECTION FORMAL REQUEST
FOR DATA

With regard to my letter to you dated June 31st 2003 I request you
send me the data I requested, and am entitled to. BY LAW.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA FROM 1994 I REQUEST THAT YOU SEND ME COPIES
OF MY LETTERS TO SMBC WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED ON FEBRUARY 28TH 1994
BY MRB/HMB/HSG1197AR. AND FROM APRIL 6TH 1994 ACKNOWLEDGED BY
MRB/HSG/1197AR DATED APRIL 15TH 1994.

WITH REGARD TO A CLAIM - I ALLEGEDLY MADE IN 1993 AGAINST SMBC
UNDER POLICY: SEFPPL93 WITH AON CLAIMS MANAGERS - AND WHICH IS ALSO
KNOWN BY THE REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON. I REQUEST COPIES OF ANY
CORRESPONDENCE WITH AON* BETWEEN AUGUST 1993 AND MARCH 1996 WHICH
REFERS TO CLAIM REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON.

I also request details of a claim said - by Mr Barr, ref:
GRB/JBJ/HSG1187 and dated 12th January 2000 - to have been "settled
off" in August 1997, which was made by me against SMBC with regard
to my gable wall related to demolition of a "nib wall."

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

LETTER FILED AT COURT IN CLAIM LV360271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC ON
APRIL 15TH 2005

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE
COURT ON OCTOBER 11TH 2004 BY MR GIBSON. THE DATA THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION AFFIRM IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING
SYSTEM IS SOLELY THAT FROM 1994. IT APPEARS THAT THIS DATA HAS
ALLEGEDLY BEEN 'LOST' BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY CASE. THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION CONFIRMS TO ME THAT MY OWN CORRESPONDENCE CANNOT BE
WITHHELD FROM ME - WHICH IS THE CASE REGARDING MY CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE COUNCIL OF 1994. SEFTON HAVE NOT CONFIRMED TO THE COURT
THEY HAVE THIS CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE ANY ASSESSMENT REGARDING
DATA AFTER 1994. THEIR VIEW, WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBERED
DOCUMENTATION I CLAIMED I HAD NOT HAD, IS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE
PROVIDED IT TO ME IN AN UN-NUMBERED FORM. THIS VIEW IS STATED TO ME
BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 25TH 2003
AND SEEMINGLY CONFIRMED BY MYSELF, AS DURING THE BUILDING OF THE
FILE FOR THE COURT CASE, I STRIPPED ALL THE HUNDRED OF DOCUMENTS
THAT COMPRISE MY OWN FILES, COMPLAINT FILES AND VARIOUS
CORRESPONDENCES, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH I DISCOVERED MANY MORE
COPY DOCUMENTS THAT INDEED I DO HAVE IN NUMBERED, TWICE NUMBERED
WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS, AND UN - NUMBERED FORM. FROM WHAT I NOW
HAVE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRAPOLATE SOME OF THE NUMBERED DOCUMENTS
I DO NOT HAVE.

THE COUNCIL STATE A LIST OF NUMBERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SENT TO THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION. THIS MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THE COMMISSIONERS
VIEW I HAD COPIES OF THEM. THE DOCUMENTS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1993 AND
JANUARY 1995 ARE NOT NUMBERED.

14 UNDISCLOSED TO ME, DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO AUGUST 1993 ARE NUMBERED.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS LETTER TO ME OF NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, MAY
WELL HAVE BEEN COPIED TO SEFTON MBC AS, ON THAT DATE MR GIBSON
WROTE TO ME STATING THAT, WITH REGARD TO "MY FILE" HE WANTED TO
MEET ME REGARDING LETTERS I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTORS ON NOVEMBER 20TH 2003 - COPIES OF WHICH I
ATTACH.

WITH REGARD TO DATA PROVIDED TO ME BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCES
HOXWORTH,

COUNCIL DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE KEPLER STREET DEVELOPMENT,
WHICH I AM NOT ENTITLED TO UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT EMERGED.
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THIS IS THE DATA THAT THE COUNCIL REFER TO AS
THAT OF 1994.

IN SHORT, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION, IS THAT.

NO DATA REGARDING FALSE CLAIMS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MYSELF ARE
ASSESSED BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION TO BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT.
THIS IS CONFIRMED IN THEIR LETTER TO ME DATED AUGUST 6TH 2002 WHICH
I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON DECEMBER 17TH 2003 TO PROVE THE COURT
HAD JURISDICTION IN MY CLAIM.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA SEFTON HOLD IN THEIR CARDBOARD BOXES IT
APPEARS - AS WITH THE DATA FROM 1994 - THAT THIS DATA FORMS NO PART
OF THE DATA SUPPLIED TO ME UNDER THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED
AND NOT NUMBERED.

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE COUNCILS MISLEADING ASSERTION THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION ALLEGEDLY ENDORSED THE VIEW THAT 'NO DATA'
WAS HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - PROVIDED TO THE COURT ON
OCTOBER 11TH 2004 AFTER THE SEFTON AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE CASES
HAD BEEN COMBINED - IS THE 'EVIDENCE' ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE RELIED ON
WITH REGARD TO THE 'DURANT CASE' IN MY CLAIM AGAINST THEM.

CLEARLY THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE WAS NOT, NOR COULD BE, EVIDENCE
RELIED ON IN ANY APPLICATION TO THE COURT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11TH
2004 BY EITHER DEFENDANT.

SEFTON, BY NEVER MAKING AN APPLICATION OR DEFENCE, HAVE NEVER
STATED ANYTHING THEY RELY ON AS EVIDENCE.

I WILL HAND DELIVER A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO SEFTON MBC.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I REQUEST AN INTENAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

For your information

FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS AND THE OMBUDSMAN 2001

ON FEBRUARY 23RD 2004 SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR FILED A DOCUMENT AT
COURT in claim LV306271, ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC: IT STATED:

“The defendant is not prepared to satisfy the Claimant that he has
a valid and bona fide claim number W215732, RR98XN and AT01939 as
these claims are now statute barred having been raised in 1995 and
again in 1996.”

THE OMBUDSMAN:

ON FEBRUARY 23RD 2001 MR OXLEY AN OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I write following your letter of 6 February…your complaint can be
summarised in the following statement:- that the Council issued a
claim to its insurers on your behalf without your knowledge or
permission…I have sent a copy of the above statement with your
complaint to the Council’s Chief Executive…I will not be
investigating any of the matter relating to your complaints about
the matters relating to the removal of the nib wall.”

IN A LETTER TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ON MARCH 15TH 2001,
SEFTON'S LEGAL DIRECTOR, MR BOWNES ALTERED AND ELABORATED THE
WORDING OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 18TH 2000 REGARDING AN ALLEGED
CLAIM(S) REFERENCED W215732 AND RR98XN AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR
LATENT DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE DEMOLITION OF A ‘NIB
WALL’ BETWEEN MARCH 14TH AND APRIL 6TH 1994 -

FROM:

”It is my belief that during the development of the Kepler Street
site carried out by Sefton MBC, Maritime Housing Association and
Fawley Construction, a nib wall that abutted my gable end was
demolished and has caused damage to my property…I hold any one or
all three of the above named responsible for the demolition and any
resulting damage.”

INTO:

“This matter…as you will observe commenced in January 1995 with a
letter from Mr Robinsons solicitors…it is clear from that letter
and from the letter from [them] dated 29th November 1995 that Mr
Robinson was seeking to make a claim against the Council.
Furthermore, in his letter dated 18th April 2000, Mr Robinson
specifically states that he holds the Council (together with
Maritime Housing Association and Fawley Construction) “responsible
for the demolition and any resulting damage.” Thus it is abundantly
clear that Mr Robinson is pursuing a claim against the Council. Mr
Robinson’s claim was forwarded to the Council’s Public Liability
Insurers…Mr Robinson appears to believe that his permission is
required before the matter could be referred to the Council’s
insurers…I am sure that you will appreciate that, as a matter of
law…it is entirely a matter for the Council to decide whether or
not it should refer a claim that has been made against it, to its
insurers.”

ON APRIL 11TH 2004 MR OXLEY WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Council’s letter of 15 March states that your claim was
forwarded to its insurers because it is a condition of its policy.
It is also a matter for the insurers to decide whether any time
limitation applies to your claim… it is my view the Council has
acted according to normal procedure concerning this type of claim…I
have not considered your claim from 1995-6…it is out of time and
you had put the matter in the hands of your solicitors at that
time.”

ON MARCH 2ND 2001 MR WILLIAMS, A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND SEFTON’S
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR - WHO WITH COUNCILLOR DAVE MARTIN, THE
LABOUR LEADER OF SEFTON COUNCIL, HAD ATTENDED A MEETING WITH ME ON
APRIL 18TH 2000 AND ASKED ME TO WRITE A COMPLAINT TO THE COUNCIL
REGARDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE ‘NIB WALL’ -WROTE THE FOLLOWING
COVERT LETTER TO MR OXLEY:

“Mr Robinson contends that “the Council issued a claim to its
insurers on Mr Robinsons behalf without his knowledge or
permission”…Mr Robinsons allegations that the Council caused the
removal of the ‘nib wall’ adjacent to the gable of his
property…came to my personal attention in October 1998 some months
before the retirement of the General Manager (Property) [Mr Barr]
who had been dealing with the issue…Mr Robinson who was concerned
that liability for removal of the said nib-wall and the potential
effects on his property had not been resolved and was concerned
that his ability to claim against the Council would become time
expired…a meeting was arranged between the Leader [Mr Martin],
myself and Mr Robinson…on 18th April 2000 during which Mr Robinson
asked how we may ‘stop the clock’ on this issue before expiry of
the six year period…given it was almost six years since the date of
the alleged removal of the nib-wall, he would be best advised to
submit a claim setting out his allegations…Mr Robinson wrote on
18th April 2000, copy enclosed, clearly alleging that the Council,
Maritime Housing Association demolished a nib-wall and caused
damage to his property…the Council naturally referred the matter to
its Insurers with a view to meeting Mr Robinson’s objective of
avoiding the expiry of the period of limitation…the Council were
treating Mr Robinsons letter as a formal submission of a claim and
taking the matter forward, as agreed with Mr Robinson, via
Independent Structural Survey. You will appreciate that it is the
council’s right to refer matters of this nature to its insurers…I
note with interest from Mr Robinsons letter to you of 6th February
2001…that he accepts that the Council had no liability for removal
of the nib wall and alleges consequential damage.”

THE LETTER REFERRED TO ABOVE BY MR OXLEY AND MR WILLIAMS MR
WILLIAMS DATED FEBRUARY 6TH 2001 WAS WRITTEN TO MR RA HARRISON
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN STATING:

I refer to your acknowledgement postmarked 30th January 2001 and my
letter to you of 24th January 2001.

My letter to you of 24th January 2001 you required more than an
acknowledgement, in it I asked it you were accepting that Sefton
MBC had committed an act of maladministration by issuing an
insurance claim to their insurers based on information they knew to
be incorrect.

A letter Ref: 94/0195/S/RJW/MNG written by Mr R J Waddelow of
SMBC's planning department on 17th February 1995, states "In our
opinion, damage if attributable to development is essentially a
matter between householders and the developers concerned..."

This clear and unequivocal statement of the position of SMBC
precludes the need for SMBC to have any further involvement with
the issue owing to the fact that the damage clearly occurred, not
during the demolition phase, not during SMBC's ownership, not
during the possession of the site by SMBC or their contractors, but
during the development phase of the project. Evidence proves this
to be true.

As requested on 24th January 2001, will you answer the question of
whether you are accepting the complaint of maladministration in
regard to the insurance claim based on false information submitted
by SMBC to their insurers in regard to my enquiries about the nib
wall that formally abutted my gable. If you are not, will you
accept that I am making a formal complaint that this matter is not
being dealt with in a fair and impartial manner by the Ombudsman's
office. I make this accusation on the grounds that;-

According to evidence they have provided, SMBC had no liability for
damage caused to my property after 14/3/94 however caused. Evidence
proves this to be true.

SMBC have stated damage during development is a matter between the
developer and the householder and indicate no difference in my
case. Evidence proves this to be true.

The basis of the false claim is that the nib wall was demolished at
the same time as the maisonette blocks, formally adjacent to my
house. Evidence proves this to be untrue.

SMBC have falsely asserted that the demolition of the nib wall was
part of a claim for damage during the demolition contract. Evidence
proves this to be untrue.

According to written and photographic evidence the nib wall
remained in situ after SMBC's demolition contract was completed.
Evidence proves this to be true.

According to SMBC the false claim in regard to the nib wall was a
re-opening of an existing claim, there is no evidence to support
this assertion in fact there is evidence that proves that apart
from the initial queries by my solicitors no action was taken by
them. Evidence proves this to be true.

SMBC claim not to know when the nib wall was demolished, they do
know it was not demolished by their contractors who were given
'special instruction' to protect it. Evidence proves this to be
true.

Over the past months I have provided you time and again with the
evidence and references that confirms the above. The overwhelming
evidence is that SMBC have without a doubt acted in a manner
calculated to pervert the facts and conceal their misdeeds at my
expense. This has been done by the calculated use of
misinformation, lies and failure to provide answers to my
legitimate and justifiable questions.

c.c. Sharan Bhogal DETR London

On MARCH 2ND 2001 IN A LETTER HEADED, “SEFTON MBC RR98XN” - A CLAIM
REFERENCE FOR AN ALLEGED INCIDENT ON JANUARY 17TH 1994 AGAINST
SEFTON BY MYSELF - RSA WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that Sefton MBC had any
involvement with the removal of the nib wall…and we cannot see that
a legal liability rests with them in respect to any damage which
may have occurred to your property…it may be that any claim you
wish to make is statute barred.”

ON APRIL 12TH 2001 MY SOLICITORS OBTAINED COUNSELS ADVICE FROM
JOHNATHAN DALE FOR A ‘PROPOSED CLAIM’ AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL: MR
DALE STATES:

“The position is no clearer in terms of who did what and when in
relation to the removal of the nib wall.”

ON MAY 2ND 2001 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO MRS THOMAS

I further refer to my letter to you dated 12/ 17/ 21/ 26 of April
2001, these letter seem to have been ignored in your consideration
of the validity of my claim against SMBC.

The matter is a very simple one, if Sefton had liability to issue a
claim to their insurers in regard to the damage caused by the
removal of the nib wall at some time after 21st April 1994, and the
right to link this claim to alleged damage to my property caused by
the demolition which occurred at some time prior to 21st April
1994, they must have had insurance cover to do so.

If they were not liable for damage on either occasion they had no
liability to issue a claim. This will be clarified by the release
of the date their insurance cover ended in relationship to the
demolition period as this is the period that is being used for
their claims.

The revealing of the date of SMBC’s insurance liability can at a
stroke resolve this issue.

SMBC cannot issue a claim if they are not liable to do so. – I
believe I have provided evidence SMBC were not liable, if you
ignore this you are being unfair.

SMBC cannot alter the law on statute barring.

SMBC’s insurers cannot alter the law on statute barring therefore
Mr Williams lied to me and as a result I have lost the right to
make a claim against anyone in regard to damage to my property. –
the evidence this is true is freely available to you, for some
reason you ignore it and seem unwilling to consider it.

You state I have not suffered loss, I disagree.

SMBC had no liability to offer me £1000 in settlement for damage to
my property.

Why was this done and on what authority.

If you are not prepared to consider this complaint and my evidence
further and investigate to clarify the allegations I am making,
please regard this letter as a formal complaint that you are not
dealing with the matter impartially and fairly and forward
information of how I must now proceed.

cc Joe Benton MP

ON MAY 30TH 2001 MRS THOMAS, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“From the information which you and the Council have provided I can
see no evidence of maladministration…whether or not the Council
should refer a matter to its insurers is a matter for the
Council…the correspondence which you have sent makes it clear that
this is to a degree a continuation of your original allegation of
neglect on the part of either the council or other parties which
dates back to the early 1990’s…you had the opportunity of taking
legal action at the time… the only rout now available to you is to
seek a Judicial review.”

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 7TH 2001

Thank you for your letter of 30th May 2001.

You say that the only route now available to me is to seek a
judicial review, can you tell me how to go about this ? Is it
possible that to aid me in that course you can provide me with the
information you have from Sefton MBC that leads you to your
conclusions ?

Will you please respond to the above question with an answer or
write and tell me that you will not give me this information.

SMBC by the act of constructing the nib wall from the remains if
the former screen wall that ran from my gable to the gable of the
former maisonette blocks, also created a right of support for my
property.

During their demolition contract they issued special instructions
to their contractors to protect the nib wall, this I am reliably
informed created a duty of care in respect of the right of support,
in the light of this it seems highly unlikely they would then
demolish the nib wall.

I can find no evidence that either SMBC or their insurers can
affect time limitation in any way, therefore I am convinced Mr
Williams lied to me to deceive me into thinking time limitation had
been suspended.

This conviction is the result of obtaining several legal opinions.

If SMBC had a legitimate responsibility to issue a notice to their
insurers for a potential claim by myself it is only common sense
that to do so they would have to be insured for the period that the
alleged damage occurred. - SMBC's insurers tell me that SMBC have
no legal liability for any damage to my property this is,
presumably, based on the fact that they did not insure SMBC for
damage to my property at the time the damage occurred.

SMBC have strenuously denied responsibility for demolition of the
nib wall.

SMBC had received accusations from myself of them damaging my
property on other occasions which did not regard as claims worthy
of their insurers attentions.

It is not credible that SMBC's insurance section, as a matter of
course, would not check their liability to answer a claim for
damage made to them, nor is it credible Mr Williams would be
unaware that there was no mechanism to suspend time limitation by
the writing of a letter to SMBC - no matter what the letter said.

As I have stated. the disclosure of the date SMBC's insurance cover
in regard to their demolition contract is the one item that will
resolve the matter of SMBC's liability at a stroke. Both they and
their insurers have given me the date when this cover commenced
(17/1/94) but both have, despite many requests to do so, not given
me the date it ended.

It seems counter to common sense that this date is being withheld
as it is at the heart of the matter and would prove SMBC right and
me wrong. I enclose copies of documentation which I consider prove
my complaint to be valid. I would be grateful for the return of
these documents.

ON JUNE 19TH 2001 SEFTONS MS SWALE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“In January 1995 your solicitors made a claim on your behalf for
alleged damage to your property in 1994. This claim was therefore
forwarded to Royal & SunAlliance the Councils insurers…in April
2000 you attended a meeting with Mr Williams where the mater was
reopened. In order to be helpful and to ensure the exact nature of
your complaint were identified, Mr Williams asked you to put these
in writing. He mentioned the six year limitation period in order to
instil a sense of urgency, but he is not an insurance expert and
did not know that only the court can suspend this. The insurance
cover for Sefton Council has been with Royal & SunAlliance since
September 1992 and remains with them to date. The cover is for the
Council’s legal liabilities. With regard to the Kepler Street site,
the Council ceased to have any involvement on April 1st 1994 when
it was handed over to Maritime Housing Association.”

ON JUNE 21ST 2001 MRS THOMAS WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME:

“The Information from Sefton MBC which led to Mr Oxley’s decision
was sent to you with his letter of 23 March. In case you do not now
have a copy of the Council’s letter of 15 March, I enclose a
further copy.”

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 26TH 2001:

I write to query the basis of the information your office have used
to reject my complaint that "Sefton MBC have used information which
they knew to be false, some of which was obtained by deception, to
issue an insurance claim".

Before I consider a Judicial Review I need the decision clarified
in light of what follows.

The reason that Mr Cowley's letter gives as the basis of my
complaint is incorrect.

1. The letter of 29/11/9 not that of 26/1/95 is the basis of the
claim to SMBC's insurance brokers see the enclosed letter to my
solicitors. There is no link with a previous claim. DO YOU ACCEPT
THIS ?

On 6/11/00 in a letter from the Councils insurers I was told that
it is a condition of the Councils insurance policy with them that
they "advise the insurers of any potential claim against them,
irrespective of any ongoing enquiries".

2. This clearly is not an optional condition. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

3. In Mr Cowleys words, "It is entirely a matter for the Council to
decide whether or not it should refer a claim that has been made
against it", DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

4. While this is essentially true, in terms of their contract of
insurance it would clearly be difficult if not impossible to
justify that the insurers met such a claim. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

5. If I did believe that SMBC required my permission to issue a
claim against them it seems that their letter to me ARM/ES/MC
on13/10/00 stating "...it is the responsibility of the claimant to
pursue the claim", would fully justify this belief. DO YOU ACCEPT
THIS ?

At an early stage in my correspondence with Maritime Housing
Association they told me that their records showed that the land at
Kepler Street was transferred to them in "mid 1995", (see
enclosure) on the basis of this information it was my belief that
the Council were the owners of the land, and therefore liable for
damage to my property occurring until "mid 1995".

In a letter to Mr Barr at SMBC on 30/10/99 in answer to his comment
that he had "no authority to carry out work on privately owned
property" and that " the demolition of your nib wall is not
something that I would have been capable of authorising" I
responded:-

6. "…as far as I am aware the property the nib wall was on was
Council owned land - according to Maritime up until ' mid 1995'
when it was transferred to them". This was not refuted and
confirmed my belief that the Council were liable. DO YOU ACCEPT
THIS ?

To clarify the matter I wrote to Mr Williams, in a letter dated
18/1/00 I stated that based on the information that Maritime had
provided that the land was not transferred to them until "mid
1995", the nib wall and the land it stood on were Council owned.
This was not refuted. SMBC did not provide a date for transfer of
the land until 11th December 2000. They have never acknowledged the
ownership of the land being Maritimes.

Clearly from the above any claims I or those informed by me, made
against the Council, were based on the belief that the land and the
nib wall were in the ownership of the Council, making them liable.
It was not until Mr Williams claimed in a letter to me dated
30/6/00 Ref: PAW/RR/rob9 that the ownership of the nib wall was
unknown at the time of its demolition that I took steps to clarify
the matter, the result, as you know was that I discovered Maritime
to have been the owners from 21/1/94.

In the same letter of 30/6/00 Mr Williams states "If the wall was
still standing at the time of the disposal of the land to Maritime
Housing, it would have become their property". Clearly it would be
as easy for SMBC to establish ownership as it was for me.

7. Prior to the claim to SMBC's insurers in July 2000 and since
October 1999 Mr Barr and Mr Williams were aware of my assertion
that Maritime were not the owners the nib wall and the land it
stood on, my belief is the Council were the owners and that they
deliberately withheld this information DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

8. The Council always knew they had no liability to issue a claim
for demolition which had occurred after the land and nib wall were
transferred to Maritime on 24/12/93. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

9. The Council were not insured with regard to my property at the
time the nib wall was demolished, nor when the maisonette blocks
were demolished after 14/3/94. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

10. From the above it follows that a claim for damage caused by the
demolition of the nib wall could not be linked with that caused by
the demolition of the maisonettes as is alleged by the Council
unless the Council were liable at the time of both events. DO YOU
ACCEPT THIS ?

SMBC's insurers state in a letter to me dated 2/3/01 that SMBC have
had no involvement in the removal of the nib wall and see no
liability by the Council for any damage to my property, they do not
make it clear if this covers damage caused both by the alleged
linked demolition of the maisonette blocks and the demolition of
the nib wall or only that caused by the demolition of the nib wall.

If the demolition of the nib wall and the demolition of the
maisonette blocks are linked together there is liability by the
Council only if the link exists and is valid.

11. On 18/4/00 there was no evidence of damage to my property
caused by the removal of the nib wall, which was at that time in
situ, this is proven beyond doubt. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

On Friday 30/6/00 Ref: PAW/RR/rob9 the Council claimed not to know
who owned the nib wall or the land it stood on at the time of its
demolition and he would write to me 2 working days later on Tuesday
4/7/00 Mr Williams wrote to me stating the matter was to be placed
in the Councils insurers hands.

On 27/7/00 Councillor Martin, informed by Mr Williams, wrote to me
stating the ownership of the nib wall was still under
consideration.

12. The facts of this matter are still in need of clarification by
the provision of exact dates, but it appears that SMBC issued the
alleged claim to their insurers before the ownership of the land
the nib wall stood on was established, or that on Monday or Tuesday
3-4/7/00 when Mr Williams stated the matter of the alleged claim
had been passed to SMBC's insurers, the ownership of the land and
nib wall had been established and due to this SMBC felt it was
their liability because the nib wall had been demolished causing
damage to my property during their ownership.. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

13. It is the ownership of the land and nib wall which establishes
legal liability, not the conditions of SMBC's insurance policy. DO
YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

I wish to correct an error in the assertion that the Councils
insurers have the power to determine time limitation which Mr Oxley
stated on 11/4/01.

14. The insurers refute their power to effect time limitation and
state the matter is one that a court will decide, this is also the
opinion of several solicitors and a barrister. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

15. Mr Oxley states, apparently based on the obligation they place
on SMBC. "It is a matter for the insurers to consider whether or
not there is any claim to consider". This appears to remove SMBC
from the consideration of any claim against them on the basis that
they are obliged, as a means to obtain indemnity, to fulfil that
obligation. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS ?

According to legal opinion I have obtained the Council established
a duty of care toward my property by issuing the "special
instructions" to their demolition contractors, during the
demolition period, at the end of which the duty had been observed
in relation to the nib wall which remained in situ on 21/4/94 and
according to SMBC passed from their ownership on 24/12/93 and from
their possession on 14/3/94 and from 1/4/94 they claim, Ref:
AD/VS/cb/13.6/robinso, "With regard Kepler Street site, the Council
ceased to have any involvement on 1st April 1994 when it was handed
over to Maritime Housing Association".

I have numbered my questions and am prepared to accept a simple yes
or no response to them. As I am in receipt of benefit and cannot
easily afford to send you copies of the letters from the Council
that I refer to, if you feel it is necessary for you to obtain them
from the Council I have given you their reference numbers. You will
find the Council have deliberately, apparently to justify the lies
of Mr Williams, linked the demolition of the nib wall to the
demolition of the maisonette blocks. The facts refute this.

I asked you to find the date that SMBC's insurance liability ended
in regard to damage to my property, the stated date of 1/4/94 as
the end of their involvement with the site proves that SMBC
knowingly issued a claim to their insurers with regard to damage
caused by the removal of the nib wall, based on false information
as they "most specifically" deny the nib wall was demolished by
their contractors Ref: GBR/AMc/KEPLER 5/10/99, as do their
contractors, GTB demolition Ltd, who cite their foreman as a
witness.

ON JULY 17TH 2001 MR WILLIAMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO THE LABOUR
LEADER OF THE COUNCIL, MR MARTIN:

“Mr Robinsons claim is being dealt with by the Council’s insurers
and Ms Viv Swale, the Claims and Administration Manager in the
Finance Department…as you are aware, Mr Robinson has previously
complained to the Ombudsman…the Ombudsman concluded there was no
evidence that Mr Robinson had been caused any injustice by
maladministration on the Council’s part. The Ombudsman decided that
the Council has acted reasonably in terms of the way in which his
claim had been dealt with.”

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JULY 7TH 2001

“Please find enclosed some of the correspondence with regard to the
complaints I have sent to you against SMBC. My observations are on
the reverse

You must see that my complaint to the Council as well as to
yourself has not been addressed and I ask you to treat the enclosed
evidence to close scrutiny and if you find no reason to reconsider
your dismissal of my complaint please write and tell me why. The
one letter to you from the Council you offer as the reason for your
conviction that the Council have acted correctly, as the basis of
you decision, is clearly wrong as it does not address my complaint.
Both you and the Council have had my correct complaint and it is
not that I am complaining that the Council issued a claim, but that
they did so based on information that they knew was false at the
time they issued it and had been obtained by deception.

As you see from the most recent correspondence from the Council
they are now asking me questions that they already have the answer
to.

I keep stressing the point that my complaint, which I consider has
not been addressed, is that the Council have used information they
know to be false to issue 2 insurance claims, the matter can be
resolved by revealing the date that the Councils legal liability
ceased in relation to the Kepler Street site. This will prove at a
stroke who is right and who is wrong.

Clearly the contents of the letters from the Council to myself
don't stand up to scrutiny, especially when compared with those of
Maritime Housing.

Throughout this matter I have been stonewalled by your office when
I point out the above, is there no way you can obtain this
information or no will to do so.

As you see from the enclosed letters I have written to the Council
and their insurers to obtain information, my efforts have been met
with the same tactics your office uses. Silence.

I am providing a stamp addressed envelope for the return of my
documents, you may copy them and send me the originals back.”

ON JULY 18TH 2001 MR YATES, THE COUNCIL’S FINANCE DIRECTOR, SENT A
‘MEMO’ TO MR WILLIAMS STATING:

“Mr Robinson…claims we were still on site to September 1994,
whereas I say (based on your memo of 1 March 2001) we ceased to be
involved from 1st April 1994 when we handed over to
Maritime…Maritime Housing have told him we had control of the site
until September 1994, please let me know if in fact we did do
anything, and the details. I am aware that Peter Cowley [Sefton’s
Senior Solicitor] is involved with this matter so I am not sure if
you want me to respond or if it should come from the insurers or
even Peter.”

ON JULY 19TH 2001 MR WILLIAMS SENT A ‘MEMO’ TO MR YATES STATING:

“[I] will endeavour for the last time to research the papers…as
there appears to be conflicting evidence from our own records,
those of our demolition contractors, and those of Maritime Housing
in relation to the completion of demolition works on the Kepler
Street site. In terms of response to Mr Robinson’s latest letter…it
should merely be acknowledged…but that in future correspondence on
the matter should be dealt with through our Insurers.”

ON JULY 19TH 2001 MR WILLIAMS WROTE TO COUNCILLOR MARTIN STATING:

“Thank you for your fax of 2nd July enclosing correspondence from
Joe Benton MP…Mr Robinson is again raking over old coals…and is
embellishing and distorting statements made in our meeting with
him. His central allegation is that his allegations of damage to
his property have been referred to our insurers…the Ombudsman was
of the opinion that the Council had acted properly in dealing with
Mr Robinson…you may wish to enclose a copy of his report in your
response to Mr Benton. Mr Robinson has recently written to the
Council’s Insurance Section and raised queries about the dates when
Sefton were undertaking work adjacent to his property during 1994.
I have arranged for a thorough examination of our archive
records…once I have this information I will pass it to the insurers
and leave it in their hands…all my future dealings with him will be
through our insurers.”

ON JULY 24TH 2001 MS SMITH, SEFTON’S SENIOR CLAIMS MANAGER SENT A
‘MEMO’ TO RSA’S M LOADER HEADED, SUBJECT:- MR ROBINSON W215732 –
RR98XN, STATING:

“I attach the latest letter from Mr Robinson. I note that his of
21.6.01 was copied to G Phillips [RSA]. Given his latest of 20.7.01
and his question of legal liability and compensation I feel that
you ????? matter for yourselves to answer. Please advise.”

ON JULY 26TH 2001 MR BOWNES, SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Ombudsman has fully investigated your compliant…the Council’s
response to your complaint was contained in my letter dated 15th
March 2001.”

ON AUGUST 7TH 2001 GTB, SEFTON’S DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“We started on site at Kepler Street on 17th January 1994…I have no
special instructions in respect of your nib wall…we were not aware
that Maritime Housing Association became owners of the land on 21st
January 1994.”

ON AUGUST 7TH 2001 RSA’S MRS CONNER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A
LETTER HEADED RR98XN:

“It appears to be accepted by both yourself, ourselves and Sefton
MBC that they ceased to have control of the land at Kepler Street
prior to the alleged damage to your property occurring. As such it
would be logical to assume that Sefton Council were not involved in
the removal of the nib wall and consequently cannot be the party
responsible for any alleged damage to your property that resulted
from its removal. Furthermore as no formal claim has been made
against Sefton MBC in respect of the alleged damage and the claim
would now appear to be statute barred I intend taking no further
action in this matter

ON AUGUST 8TH 2001 MS SWALE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“It is my belief that the final day the Council was responsible for
the site was 31st March 1994 and therefore with effect from 1st
April 1994 we ceased to be liable for anything that happened on the
land.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2001 GTB WROTE TO ME STATING:

“Our Certificate of completion received from Sefton Council on May
3rd 1994 states that the works were completed on the 21st April
1994. If any further demolition was carried out at Kepler Street
after this time it was not done by GTB Demolition Company.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLOWING:

Letter to the Aon Corporation dated April 2nd 2002

I write in reference to a claim which is stated to have been made
by myself against Sefton Council regarding damage to my property
caused by the demolition of a nib wall which had occurred at Kepler
Street, Seaforth, Liverpool at some time after 14/3/94.

On 18/4/00 the letter, reproduced below, was obtained from me by Mr
Williams Director of Technical Services for the Council and using
the deception that it would suspend time limitation on any future
claim made regarding the damage caused specifically by the above
demolition.

The Councils insurers Royal & SunAlliance tell me that the Council
were not responsible for any demolition at Kepler Street after
14/3/94 and have no liability for the demolition of the nib wall.

The Council tell me that from 14/3/94 any demolition on the land
was with the sanction of Maritime Housing and that from 1/4/94 it
had no involvement with the site.

"With regard to our meeting held today at Bootle Town Hall.

It is my belief that during the development of the Kepler Street
site carried out by Sefton MBC, Maritime Housing Association and
Fawley Construction a nib wall that abutted my gable wall was
demolished and has caused damage to my property.

I accept your offer to have an independent survey conducted with a
view to establish what if any damage may have been caused.

My property has been surveyed by Brian Clancy Partnership, Dixon
Webb Ltd, Alan Jones and Company. Kevin Smith and associates and
Edward Jackson Partnership.

NB I hold any one or all three of the above named responsible for
the demolition and any resulting damage."

The above assertion was made by myself relying on written
information sent to me by all the three parties involved. Much of
this information now turns out to be inaccurate, misleading,
incomplete or false and was primarily based on lies and deceptions
provided by Mr Barr and Mr Williams of the Council.
Mr D Fawley of Fawley Construction Ltd and Mr Quayle of Maritime
Housing Association in 1999. Some of these acts are criminal
offences.

On 2/5/00 (I believe) a claim was sent to yourselves based on the
altered information of this letter which was asserting falsely that
my letter of 18/4/00 stated that I held the Council and Maritime
and Fawley responsible for this alleged damage to my property: I
had alleged in writing to both the Council and Maritime Housing in
1999 that damage to my property caused by the demolition of the nib
wall was caused specifically after 14/3/94.

This false claim was then forwarded to the Councils insurers who
wrote to me on 7/9/00 regarding a claim against the Council for
damage caused by an incident dated 17/1/94.

Ms Swale of the Councils Finance Department tells me the date
17/1/94 was applied to the claim by "insurers."

The Councils "insurers" tell me this date was applied to the claim
because it was the date that the demolition contract with GTB
commences, the Council tell me this demolition contract was
completed on 31/3/94.

Sefton Council had photographed the nib wall in situ on 7/3/94.

On 28/2/00 Mr Williams wrote to me regarding the demolition of the
nib wall that the Council, "...do know however that it was not
removed on the instruction of ourselves or Maritime Housing
Association."

In a consultancy brief to JSA Ltd, Consultant Engineers dated
11/5/00 Mr Williams stated that the nib wall was probably
demolished between "3rd March 1994 and September of that year."

To ascertain where the date 17/1/94 came from I write to ask if it
was yourselves who applied the date 17/1/94 to the claim regarding
the demolition of the nib wall which was the topic of my letter to
Mr William's of 18/4/00 or had this date been applied prior to your
receipt of it ?

cc Ms Gilchrist Royal & SunAlliance Liverpool.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RICHARD ROSCOE

Sefton Council from the evidence below did not have sufficient
legal interest over the land to instruct Fawley Construction to
grant me a one metre strip of land along my gable wall and alter
the boundary of the land between my property and that of Maritime
housing Association: Consequently, it is for Maritime to establish
that Sefton was given that interest in the strip of land to give it
to me on their behalf.

It is common ground between Maritimes contractor Fawley
Construction and Sefton that Sefton’s instructions to Fawley in
April 1994 for the alteration of the boundary based on Sefton’s
mapping, was supported by Maritime at the Planning stage of the
development granted on June 29th 1994 under reference’s: 417/02 -
417/04 - 417//04 – 417/05, 417/06 plus revised layout plan, and
417/07 revision E.


It is also common ground between Sefton Council, myself and its
insurers, Royal & SunAlliance that the Council had no insurable
interest in the land from December 24th 1993 when Sefton
transferred the land title to Maritime.

However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton,
Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994 state “NO HANDOVER WILL BE
ACCEPTED WITHIN 10 DAYS PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS DAY.”

Maritime at that time were averring that their ‘RECORDS’ showed the
land was transferred to them from Sefton in “MID 1995.”

The registration for this land under tile MS351603 is recorded as
August 31st 1994. The Land Registry say that from December 24th
1993 Maritime were the owners of the land, the Registry also say in
an office copy dated February 3rd 2006, that, due to the transfer
of the land, the title absolute of the freehold land was Maritime’s
from January 21st 1994.

There is no common ground between Maritime and Sefton as to who had
‘CONTROL’ over the land from December 24th 1993 until September
1994.

Sefton’s CEO states that from December 24th 1993 Maritime were
RESPONSIBLE for the land, however, the Council’s insurance section
and the CEO’s officers state that Council had an interest in the
property until is was “HANDED BACK TO MARITIME ON APRIL 1ST 1994”.
This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability Act between
January and September 1994.

However, Maritime say that Sefton were “IN CONTROL OF THEIR
CONTRACTORS ON THE LAND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES ON
IT” which was until: so Sefton’s Principle Architect says,
SEPTEMBER 1995. This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability
Act between January 1994 and September 1995. Fawley, who did not
start their building activities on the land until September 1994,
aver in a WITNESS STATEMENT to the court they were under the
‘VERBALLY AGREED’ control of Sefton in February 1995.

However, Sefton say that they were LICENCED by Maritime to be on
the land to effect demolition of the existing maisonettes between
JANUARY 21ST AND MARCH 31ST 1994 when their interest in the site
ceased. This removes them from the Occupiers liability Act.

However, Sefton also say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that, to the
best of their knowledge, “MARITIME HOUSING TOOK POSSESSION OF THE
SITE ON MARCH 14TH 1994.” This means that whoever Maritime took
possession from on March 14th 1994 had POSSESSED the site until
March 14th 1994.

However, Maritime say as far as they were aware [DV/PQ A4345
SEPTEMBER 28TH 1999] that, “UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1994 THE SITE WAS
UNDER THE CONTROL OF SEFTON COUNCIL WHO WERE NOT ACTING ON THE
BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994…THEY
WERE APPOINTED BY US TO OVERSEE AND LOOK AFTER OUR INTERESTS WHILST
THE HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT” This brings Sefton under the Occupiers
Liability Act ‘up to September 1995.
However, Sefton say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that “FROM DECEMBER
24TH 1994 THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAND PASSED TO MARITIME AND
ANY WORK OF DEMOLITION BY SEFTON WHICH MAY HAVE STILL BEEN UNDERWAY
AFTER THAT DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY MARITIME”. This
asserts that Sefton were acting “ON BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION
BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994”.
However, Maritime say [DV/PJQ/A2983 MARCH 2ND 1999] that “I am sure
you will appreciate that there are many departments in Sefton
Council that could have carries out the demolition, if, in fact the
demolition was carried out by Sefton Council.”

However, Maritime state [DV/PQ/A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] “THIS
ASSOCIATION WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE
MAISONETTE BLOCKS WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THE SITE. THIS
ASSOCIATION TOOK POSSESSION [ON MARCH 14TH 1994] OF A CLEARED SITE,
FOLLOWING DEMOLITION BY SEFTON COUNCIL.”

However Royal & SunAlliance say on November 16th 200 [in a claim
for an incident on January 17th 1994 referenced:
RR98XN/conner/TPPZ] that ”ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY
RESULTING IN THE DEMOLITION WORKS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN 14 MARCH AND
6 APRIL 1994 SHOULD BE REDIRECTED TO FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION WHO WERE
THE DEMOLITION CONTACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORKS.”
– “Work’s” is defined as including demolition works under the
Building Act.

However, Maritime say [DV/PQ/A3054 MARCH 17TH 1999] “THE SITE
CLEARANCE WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR WHO UNDERTOOK
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR THIS ASSOCIATION.” Which was a
reaffirmation of a statement by Maritime and copied to Sefton
[DV\PQ\A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] regarding “THE ASSOCIATIONS BUILDING
CONTRACTOR WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT AT KEPLER
STREET.” Which was again reiterated by Maritime’s statement
[PJQ\DV\C3019 SEPTEMBER 8TH 1999] that “THE STRICT LEGAL POSITION
IS THAT WHEN A CONTRACTOR TAKES POSSESSION OF A SITE HE IS
RESPONSIBLE UNTIL THAT SITE IS HANDED BACK TO THE OWNER…SEFTON MBC
WERE EMPLOYED AS THIS ASSOCIATION’S AGENTS, AND AS SUCH WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING SUCH ACTION AS WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE
COMPLETION OF THE NEW HOUSES. THEY WERE, THEREFORE, EFFECTIVELY IN
CONTROL OF THE SITE ON OUR BEHALF.” This brings Fawley within the
Occupiers Liability Act.

However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton,
Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994, some months after the
demolition of the maisonettes on the land had been completed, give
the dates for contract COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT WITH
FAWLEY AS COMMENCING ON MARCH 14TH 1994 WITH A COMPLETION DATE OF
APRIL 21ST 1995.

However, Fawley Construction says that they took POSSESSION of the
land on March 14th 1994.

However, there is a document “PASSAGE OF OWNERSHIP” dated March
14th 1994, accompanied by an undated deed TRANSFERRING the land
from Fawley to Maritime to meet their stage payments for work under
the ‘City Challenge Scheme’ sponsored by the Government.
The law is that: If A and B are in dispute about ownership of a
piece of land, the only question for the court is which of the two
of them has the better title to the land.
From the above it appears that Maritime contest the date on which
they themselves owned the land by the transfer of it to them from
Sefton being dated by them as either December 24th 1993 [a witness
statement to the court, verified by a statement of truth states
Maritime, ”obtained legal title to the land on the 24th December
1993] which is contradicted by the statement on February 1st 1999
that Maritime’s records showed the land was transferred to them in
“MID 1995.”
It is not common ground with anyone that the land was registered or
unregistered on December 24th 1993.
Section 3 (2) of the Land Registration Act 2002 deals with the
circumstances in which a person may apply to be registered as the
proprietor of what had hitherto been an unregistered legal estate.
Section 3(2) provides as follows:
Section 11 (11) of the Land Registration Act deals with the effect
of registration of a person as the proprietor of a freehold estate,
and provides: "THE ESTATE IS VESTED IN THE PROPRIETOR TOGETHER WITH
ALL INTERESTS SUBSISTING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE."


It is clear there was a delay of over seven months between the
possesessory title of the land and its registration on August 31st
1994, this registration should have been completed within two
months and. by virtue of that fact, and there must have been
something ‘special’ to account for this delay.

Section 11(7) deals with the special case of possessory title and
provides that: "REGISTRATION WITH POSSESSORY TITLE HAS THE SAME
EFFECT AS REGISTRATION WITH ABSOLUTE TITLE, EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST ADVERSE TO,
OR IN DEROGATION OF, THE PROPRIETOR'S TITLES SUBSISTING AT THE TIME
OF REGISTRATION OR THEN CAPABLE OF ARISING."


It is common ground [by evidence] between Sefton and Maritime and
the Land Registry that on January 21st 1994 Maritime became the
owners of the land by way of a forged certified transfer document
and forged mapping composed of two versions of OS SJ3398 dated 1978
and 1969 cut and pasted together. It is also common ground [by
evidence] that the Registry ALTERED the mapping used in the
transfer with a forged title map for this same land composed of two
versions of OS SJ3396 dated 1969 and 1884 cut and pasted together.

The reasons allowed by the Land Registry Act allow the registrar to
alter the registrar; “FOR THE PURPOSE OF:
 (A) CORRECTING A
MISTAKE,
 (B) BRINGING THE REGISTER UP TO DATE,
 (C) GIVING EFFECT
TO ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST EXCEPTED FROM THE EFFECT OF
REGISTRATION, OR
( D) REMOVING A SUPERFLUOUS ENTRY.”
I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

HOW DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF VEXATION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME
BELOW, APPLY TO ME ?

Heard on the papers at Procession House, London, EC4

1. On the 4 January 2002 a member of staff from Jobcentre Plus in
Dudley (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) was responding to a question about benefits received by Mrs
Hossack. The question was from solicitors handling a personal
injury claim involving Mrs Hossack. In the course of the call, the
member of staff disclosed that Mr Hossack was receiving benefits.
That disclosure was unauthorised and a breach of the Data
Protection Act.

2. Mr Hossack has been campaigning about that breach ever since.
The Department have investigated the breach, a number of times,
have admitted it, accepted responsibility for it, apologised for
it, and paid compensation to Mr Hossack for it. During the course
of his campaign, Mr Hossack has twice had the breach investigated
by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Administration (the
Ombudsman), whose recommendations the DWP have accepted and acted
upon.

3. Mr Hossack remains dissatisfied. He has engaged three firms of
solicitors at various times to act on his behalf. He has taken
counsel’s opinion. He has repeatedly threatened legal action,
though none has resulted. He has campaigned publicly, naming
individual members of DWP staff, accusing them of a variety of
criminal acts including corruption and fraud. He has leafleted
locally setting out his allegations; he has towed a trailer with
posters advertising his allegations around the town. More recently,
he has set up a website to publicise his allegations. The request
for information

4. Over the years, Mr Hossack has made many requests for
information to the Department, which have been answered to a
greater or lesser extent during the various inquiries and
voluminous correspondence generated by his campaign. One particular
issue that has concerned Mr Hossack is the identity of the employee
who made the disclosure (though in more recent correspondence to
the Tribunal, Mr Hossack asserts that he now knows the name, and in
any event is not – and never has been - interested in the identity
of the individual.)

5. One particular letter from Mr Hossack, of 12 March 2006 made
specific reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
requested “copies of the XXXX enquiry and YYYY enquiry
information”. These are two employees of the DWP who had
investigated Mr Hossack’s complaint in its early stages.

6. That request was refused on 11 May 2006 on the grounds that it
was vexatious and could therefore be refused within section 14 of
FOIA.

The complaint to the Information Commissioner

7. Mr Hossack complained about that refusal to the Information
Commissioner (IC). As part of its response to the Commissioner’s
investigation, the DWP prepared a lengthy account of the history of
the various complaints and correspondence, setting out their
analysis of why the current request should be treated as vexatious.

8. The Commissioner’s investigation was understandably protracted.
The Decision Notice, issued on 13 March 2007, found that “the
request was correctly refused as vexatious”, though it noted that
the DWP’s response had been given outside the 20 day time limit set
by the Act. No remedial action was required. The appeal to the
Tribunal

9. Mr Hossack appealed against the Decision Notice on 27 March
2007, on the ground that the Commissioner was wrong to describe his
request as vexatious. The DWP was joined as a party and directions
were given. The questions for the Tribunal

10. The legal framework is simple. Section 14 of FOIA states: (1)
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

11. The Act does not define vexatious further. The Information
Commissioner has published Awareness Guidance notes, no 22 of which
deals with vexatious and repeated requests. We found that a helpful
framework, though it is not of course binding on us. The DWP
referred us to a number of decisions dealing with vexatious in
different statutory contexts, including costs awards and vexatious
litigants. We found these interesting but not directly helpful. We
accept the DWP’s point that the consequences of a finding that a
request for information is vexatious are much less serious than a
finding of vexatious conduct in these other contexts, and therefore
the threshold for a request to be found vexatious need not be set
too high. Our context is different; and, as the IC points out in
his Guidance, it is the character of the request, which must be
considered, not the party.

12. That raises the question of how far the request must be
considered in its own terms, and how far it can be considered in
context. On its own, there is nothing in the wording or nature of
the request to suggest it could be vexatious. But there is no
reason to restrict consideration to what appears on the face of the
request, and it would be artificial to do so. Clearly, context and
history are important. To decide whether a request is vexatious
must include, for example, the effect on the recipient, and may
vary depending on who the recipient is, and when the request is
made.

13. We found the previous decision of the Information Tribunal in
Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner and London
Metropolitan University, EA/2006/0070 helpful. They considered a
number of factors in deciding that that request was vexatious:

i. There is no statutory definition for the term vexatious and its
normal use is to describe activity that is likely to cause distress
or irritation, literally to vex a person to whom it is directed.

ii. The fact that several of the questions purported to seek
information, which the Appellant clearly already possessed, and the
detailed content of which had previously been debated with the
University.

iii. The tendentious language adopted in several of the questions,
demonstrating that the Appellant’s purpose was to argue and even
harangue the University and certain of its employees and not really
to obtain information that he did not already possess.

iv. The background history between the Appellant and the University
... and the fact that the request, viewed as a whole, appeared to
us to be intended simply to reopen issues which had been disputed
several times before. Several of these factors are present in the
current appeal. We would add to the first factor that for the
request to be vexatious there must be no proper or justified cause
for it. A parking ticket may be likely to cause distress or
irritation and may vex the motorist who receives it, but, if
properly issued, should not be described as vexatious.

Evidence

14. This appeal was decided without an oral hearing. The parties
presented their evidence and submissions to us in writing. We do
not propose to set out the evidence in any detail, but having
considered all of it, we make the following findings.

15. Mr Hossack has already in one way or another during his lengthy
correspondence and the previous enquiries received the bulk, if not
all, of the information he now requests. We noted above for
example, his own statement that he now knows the name of the
employee who made the original wrongful disclosure.

16. The Department does not know with certainty who made that
disclosure, but on the evidence available, it is clear that the
identity of the individual has been known, on a balance of
probability, since soon after the first enquiries were made.

17. The Department’s initial responses to Mr Hossack were
misleading. They gave the impression that the employee involved
could not be identified. Moreover, they implied that full enquiries
had been made, when the third party, the firm of solicitors to whom
the disclosure had been made, had not been contacted.

18. Those matters were investigated and ruled on by the Ombudsman.
It was that second report, in February 2005, that lead to the
Department’s second compensation payment, making a total of £150.
We endorse the Ombudsman’s observation that “Jobcentre Plus [the
Department] could have handled your complaint better”.

19. We quote one or two examples of Mr Hossack’s correspondence,
almost at random, to give an indication of Mr Hossack’s approach:
from a letter to the Director of Jobcentre Plus, 1 April 2004: “I
have no intention at all of terminating any communication with the
Dudley Job Centre plus office, and intend to make further factual
comments in writing and verbal form. This to include leaflets given
out with the corrupt officers’ names upon them outside Job Centre
Plus on random days.” From a letter of 12 December 2005 “sent to
the list of government bodies who have become involved in this
saga.”: “My intension [sic] will also be to bring the complaint
back to local levels by naming and shaming the corrupt fraudulent
officers in my local DWP department being [two names are given] and
the corrupt data protection officer...”. Consideration and
Conclusion

20. Mr Hossack has been unwilling to let the matter rest, after the
second Ombudsman’s report, despite no new matters of any
significance having come to light since. He has relentlessly
pursued different members of the DWP staff with correspondence,
scattering his allegations of corruption broadly, and publicising
them vigorously both in the immediate locality and, through his
website, to the world. In his submission to us, Mr Hossack
explained his understanding of fraud: ”to give or provide
information that is untrue”. In this view of the world, every error
is fraudulent; and it is noticeable that Mr Hossack does not
attribute a motive, let alone any question of personal or financial
gain, to the employee who made the original disclosure, or those
who subsequently investigated it.

21. A recurrent feature of the correspondence are threats of
imminent legal action from Mr Hossack, often directed to
individuals, and couched in formal legal terms. Mr Hossack
explained to us that he meant nothing by this: “This I believe to
be a mere tool to get a response and that the threat is nothing
more than subliminal”. Another recurrent feature is the repetition
of increasing statements of financial loss which Mr Hossack
attributes to the Department’s actions in some way, rather than to
his own needlessly protracted campaign. At times Mr Hossack states
that he intends to sue to recover this money; at others, he denies
any question of financial interest.

22. Just as, over the years, Mr Hossack’s financial claims have
mounted, so has his deluded sense of the importance of the issues
at stake. For example, in a letter of 12 October 2006 to the IC’s
office: “I am afraid the matter has gone beyond the recognisable
simple mistake that was made.... . The matter concerned has now
become a matter of breach of convention of human rights Act under
loss of liberty as it is quite clear from information gained that
the conspiracy between the Ombudsman, DWP and Job Centre Plus
continues with unforgivable deceit, lies, fraud and corruption.” In
our view, far from a campaigner for truth and justice on behalf of
the public, as Mr Hossack portrays himself, he is more correctly
described as pursuing an unreasonable obsession.

23. Against that background, is Mr Hossack’s request for the
information contained in the two internal investigations vexatious?
Applying the second, third and fourth factors considered by the
Tribunal in the case of Ahilathirunayagam: (ii) Previous possession
of the information: Mr Hossack already had the substance of the 2
reports, and has debated their detailed content with the
department. (iii) Tendentious language: Mr Hossack’s request is
expressed neutrally, but the language of many of his past
communications has been tendentious, aggressive, threatening and
abusive. His purpose has been to harangue the department and its
employees, not to seek information he did not already possess. (iv)
Reopening issues: Mr Hossack endlessly wishes to debate the
circumstances of that original disclosure, each time magnifying its
importance and effects.

24. If we hesitate at all in describing the request as vexatious,
it is only because when considering the first factor, we have added
the qualification that the distress caused must be unjustified: (i)
activity that is likely to cause, without justification or proper
cause, distress or irritation: there is no doubt that Mr Hossack’s
request caused distress and irritation, but in the early stages at
least, Mr Hossack’s campaign was fuelled by the Department’s
initial misleading replies. In Mr Hossack’s view, this provides a
full justification for his subsequent and current allegation of a
corrupt cover up.

25. We reject that view. Whatever cause or justification Mr Hossack
may have had for his campaign initially, cannot begin to justify
pursuing it to the lengths he has now gone to. To continue the
campaign beyond the Ombudsman’s second report, when his complaint
had been exhaustively and externally investigated, and once the
Department had accepted the errors, apologised for them and paid
compensation, is completely unjustified and disproportionate.

26. We say that not just because of the wounding and intemperate
language which Mr Hossack uses on occasion, or the volume of his
correspondence, but because the original breach of the Data
Protection Act has lead to no discernible detrimental effects for
Mr Hossack. His privacy was certainly infringed, but he has
suffered no material loss, and has been appropriately compensated
for the invasion of privacy; and to the extent that the breach has
been publicised, that is entirely his own doing. (We have no
jurisdiction over matters of compensation, but we are not surprised
that the Ombudsman thought the relatively small sum of £150 was
appropriate.)

27. Seen in context, we have no hesitation in declaring Mr
Hossack’s request, in January 2007, vexatious. The Information
Commissioner was correct in reaching that conclusion in the
decision notice, which we uphold.

Costs

28. During the course of the appeal, Mr Hossack applied for costs
against the DWP and the IC; and the DWP applied against Mr Hossack.
The IC seeks no award. The Tribunal’s powers to award costs are set
out in Rule 29 of the Tribunal’s Enforcement Appeals rules 2005:

(1) In any appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make an
order awarding costs –

(a) Against the appellant and in favour of the Commissioner where
it considers the appeal was manifestly unreasonable;

(b) Against the Commissioner and in favour of the appellant where
it considers that the disputed decision was manifestly
unreasonable;

(c) Where it considers that a party has been responsible for
frivolous, vexatious, improper or unreasonable action, or for any
failure to comply with a direction or any delay which with due
diligence could have been avoided, against that party and in favour
of any other.

29. We take (c), the only appropriate provision for an award of
costs between the appellant and the third party, to be restricted
to action during these appeal proceedings. We have no jurisdiction
to award costs because of a party’s previous frivolous, vexatious,
improper or unreasonable action. Our finding that Mr Hossack’s
request was vexatious has no bearing on consideration of costs.

30. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the IC is groundless and
is dismissed without further consideration. His claim against the
DWP (for £200,000 incurred since 2001) is based on various grounds,
most of them outside our jurisdiction. In a minor respect, the DWP
failed to comply with Directions from the Tribunal for exchange of
documents and submissions missing a deadline by some days. Even if
we were satisfied that with due diligence this could have been
avoided (and we are not so satisfied, having regard to the
explanation provided), we would not have awarded costs for a minor
breach which has had no bearing on the overall fairness of the
process and has not affected the other parties’ ability to present
their case. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the DWP is
dismissed.

31. The DWP claim their solicitors’ costs in conducting the appeal,
some £11,680, excluding counsel’s costs. The DWP argues that
because Mr Hossack’s request was vexatious, “it follows that this
appeal is also vexatious, improper or unreasonable”. As set out
above, we reject the suggestion that the character of the request
determines the character of the appeal. It is easy to see
situations where the Tribunal may find a request vexatious, but
does so only on balance, after anxious consideration. In such a
case, an appeal could not be said to be vexatious or unreasonable.
This is not such a case; given the history and context, the request
is clearly vexatious; “the Commissioner’s decision was manifestly
correct” as the DWP argue.

32. That finding might ground an award of costs in favour of the
Commissioner under Rule 29(1)(a) on the basis that the appeal was
manifestly unreasonable, but the Commissioner seeks no such award.
It is unclear whether Rule 29(3) allows us to award the costs of an
appeal to a third party on the grounds that the appeal itself was
manifestly unreasonable, as opposed to action within the appeal.
However, even if we decided that point in the DWP’s favour, a costs
award would be discretionary, not automatic (“the tribunal may make
an order awarding costs”).

33. In exercising our discretion, we take into account that in
appeals to the Tribunal costs are the exception, not the norm. It
is important that the public should not be deterred by the threat
of costs from approaching the Tribunal. Secondly, FOIA is new law.
The definition of a vexatious request is still unsettled: we have
not, for example, adopted the IC’s definition in his Guidance Note,
though we reach the same conclusion. We have found the request
clearly vexatious, but only after considering context and history.
On its face, it is a reasonable request.

34. Thirdly, considering the facts of this particular case, there
is our finding that the DWP’s initial replies to Mr Hossack were
misleading. We do not say that that justifies his subsequent
campaign, but it does mean that the DWP are not the entirely
innocent victims of a misguided appeal. At least initially, they
contributed to the force of Mr Hossack’s campaign.

35. Fourthly, there is nothing in Mr Hossack’s conduct of the
appeal proceedings which would give rise to any award, at least
until the later stages. His submissions repeat his misguided
allegations of corruption against the DWP, but that is part and
parcel of his case.

36. However, in the final stages of the appeal, he makes an
unpleasant and personal attack on the conduct and integrity of the
solicitor conducting the case for the DWP: for example, in the
“Conclusion” submitted on 4 November 2007. Allowing for the stress
of litigation, and the irritation no doubt caused by the DWP’s
missed deadlines, this is an improper way to conduct the action.

37. Even so, considering the first four factors above, we have
decided against a costs award. However, Mr Hossack should be aware
that he has escaped an award on this occasion by the narrowest of
margins, and he may not find another Tribunal, should he pursue a
comparable appeal again, as accommodating.

38. Our decision is unanimous.

Signed Humphrey Forrest Deputy Chairman Date 18th December 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

FOR INFORMATION:

COVERT MEANS SECRET OR HIDDEN.

OVERT MEANS OPEN.

RECIPIENT MEANS SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES SOMETHING.

DATA SUBJECT REQUEST IS SOMETHING SENT TO THE RECIPIENT OF IT.

CONFIRM OR DENY MEANS TO GIVE A CONSTRUCTIVE ANSWER TO A REQUEST
UNDER THE FOIA.

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2002:

May 7 – 14 – 22

July 15

August 6 - 22

Covert correspondence to Sefton Council from the IC January 5 2004.

ON FEBRUARY 23RD 2004 IN CLAIM LV 306271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC,
SEFTON COUNCIL'S LEGAL DIRECTOR FILED AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT IN
COURT WHICH THE COURT SAYS WAS A 'DEFENCE' (THE FIRST DEFENCE)
REGARDING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732, RR98XN AND AT01939
STATING:

"These claims are now statute barred having been raised in 1995 and
again in 1996...there is no obligation on the Council to notify
third parties that any information is unreliable or unfounded...any
claim that the Claimant may have in respect of his wall affecting
his property is now statute barred...any claim in relation to data
should be addressed to the Data Protection Registrar and is a
matter of which the court has no jurisdiction"

Covert correspondence to Sefton Council from the IC March 1st 2004.

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2004:

March 3

April 8 – 14

ON APRIL 14TH 2004, ADDLESHAW GODDARD, A FIRM OF SOLICITORS - NOT
ON THE COURT RECORD - SENT A "VERIFIED DEFENCE" TO THE COURT SIX
DAYS OUT OF TIME IN CLAIM 4LV11339 ROBINSON V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
PLC STATING:

"ON OR ABOUT 20 FEBRUARY 1996 THE SUN ALLIANCE WAS NOTIFIED BY
ROLLIN HUDIG HALL...OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON BY THE
CLAIMANT [REFERENCED] W215732. SUN ALLIANCE'S REFERENCE RELATING TO
THAT CLAIM WAS AT01939...ON OR ABOUT 13 JULY 2000 THE DEFENDANT WAS
NOTIFIED BY AON CLAIMS MANAGEMENT...OF ANOTHER POSSIBLE CLAIM BY
THE CLAIMANT [WHICH] AROSE OUT OF A LETTER DATED 18 APRIL 2000
WRITTEN BY THE CLAIMANT TO MR WILLIAMS, TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR
OF SEFTON. THE DEFENDANTS REFERENCE IN RELATION TO THE SECOND CLAIM
WAS RR98XN. THE DEFENDANT FIRST WROTE TO THE CLAIMANT IN RELATION
TO THE SECOND CLAIM ON 7 SEPTEMBER 1994 STATING IT WAS NOW HANDLING
THE MATTER ON BEHALF OF SEFTON...THERE FOLLOWED VOLUMINOUS
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN...VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS WORKING FOR SEFTON,
VARIOUS COUNCILLORS OF SEFTON, THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH INSURERS,
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, MERSEYSIDE POLICE, MR J BENTON MP,
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER. SOME OR
ALL OF THIS LATTER CORRESPONDENCE WAS COPIED TO THE DEFENDANTS."

June 4

ON JULY 19TH 2004 SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR FILED AN
UNVERIFIED 'DEFENCE' IN COURT (THE SECOND DEFENCE) STATING:

"The Claimant is a Local Authority who in 1993 were owners of the
land...between January and April 1994, demolition took place of
existing Council housing at that site culminating in redevelopment
work on the site being completed on 26th September 1994...a claim
was received from solicitors acting for the Claimant on 29th
November 1995...and a claim number was allocated being claim number
W215732...that claim is now statute barred...the Councils Technical
Services Director met with the Claimant on the 18th day of April
2000 and advised him to seek independent legal advice in relation
to his claim as at that date it was close to becoming statute
barred...the Council paid for a survey to be carried out on the
Claimants property...the Claimant has inundated the council with
correspondence to its Technical Services Department, its Insurance
Section,its Planning Department, its Chief Executive, its Legal
Department, its Data Protection Officer its Councillors and the
local member of Parliament in relation to a number of allegations
against the Council in respect of claim number W215732 which the
claimant has stated is a claim he did not make...a full
investigation has been carried out by the Information
Commission...the Information Commission have held that in respect
of Mr Robinson's access request data held by the Council is not
part of a "relevant filing system"...the Information Commission
refers to the "Durant" case on the interpretation of the Data
Protection Act 1998."

THE OVERT PURPOSE GIVEN TO ME BY THE IC WAS THAT THE ONLY PERSONAL
INFORMATION OF MINE BEING DISCUSSED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL WAS
INFORMATION FROM 1994 WHICH, THE COUNCIL TOLD THE IC, CONSISTED OF
SOME 700 DOCUMENTS.

THERE ARE AND NEVER WERE 700 DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN 1994, I.E 14
DOCUMENTS A WEEK FOR A WORKING YEAR AND THEREFORE THEY DID NOT FALL
UNDER "DURANT" AS THEY ARE FALLACIOUS.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson