Alteration of OS maps by licenceees

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that licensees can lawfully combine
different OS maps to create maps of none existent land or features
on land from two or more different maps.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Luke Hampson,

Are you saying that it is lawful for a licensee to alter OS maps as
long as that alteration is not used for an unlawful purpose. Can
you give me a example of lawful alteration of OS maps. When you use
the word lawful, do refer to any particular law.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

My request was not a 'new' request it was a response to the
introduction of the concept by yourself that the alteration of the
Surveys mapping would be censured if it was done for an illegal
purpose. That idea suggests that the alteration would not per se be
illegal, therefore I asked you to provide an example of a legal
alteration of the Surveys maps to support your concept. Also I do
not understand how the information I seek has anything to do with
commercial interests, severely interfering with any business or
audits or, prejudices anybody, will you please clarify how it does.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

I have made no appeal, nor do I wish to.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

I will refer you to what you wrote to me on January 22nd 2007,
which was:

"Where an individual or organisation has legitimately acquired our
mapping, they are permitted to use, reproduce and alter it within
the terms of their licence."

Any comment ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

I will refer you to what you wrote to me on January 22nd 2007,
which was:

"Where an individual or organisation has legitimately acquired our
mapping, they are permitted to use, reproduce and alter it within
the terms of their licence."

Any comment ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

A response to my FOI request is overdue despite you withdrawing you
self induced internal appeal. Please answer my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Grey

For the absence of doubt, are you refusing to answer my FOI Request
regarding the alteration of OS mapping - copies of which have been
sent to you showing precisely what mapping has been altered
(forged) and exactly how this was done by providing the Survey with
hard copy evidence of the altered mapping and, showing how the
forgers used the same cut and paste method as demonstrated, to
produce the altered mapping which, cannot compare with any mapping
that has been legitimately produced by the Survey.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Grey

I await your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response to this overdue FOI request

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TONY GREY

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TONY GREY

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

GOOD MORNING IT IS NOW JANUARY 9TH 2009

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TONY GREY

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TONY GREY

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING THE ABOVE INTERNAL REVIEW AND THE
USE OF THE SURVEYS MAPPING:

Alleged “Complaints” about titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I SENT A DETAILED LETTER AND ‘CUT AND PASTED’
EVIDENCE OF FORGED LAND REGISTRY MAPPING OF TITLES LA45086, LA43343
AND MS350603 TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND FILED
IT AT THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT STATING:

“It is my belief that this matter should be now be properly
investigated by either the Police or the Serious Fraud Office as
the Land Register is now unreliable.”

ON JULY 10TH 2006 THIS LETTER WAS RESPONDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the report of falsified land
records…the Department…has considered your letter but unfortunately
it does not have responsibility for the issue raised in your
letter…we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of
Community Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO THE DISTRICT
JUDGE ON JULY 12TH 2006.

ON JULY 24TH 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO THE LAWYERS
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ALTERING MY REPORT OF ALLEGED CRIME, TO A
COMPLAINT BY STATING:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the
office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its
remit. One of the teams lawyers will consider your complaint.”

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006 IN A LETTER (ACRT/MS 351603.A.081/DW) HEADED
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET
AND MAPLE CLOSE SEAFORTH: THE AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM IN COVENTRY
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER TO THE DEPUTY PRIME
MINISTER AND PRESUMABLY THE FILED FORGED CUT AND PASTED MAPS THAT
ACCOMPANIED IT:

“Your letter is considered to be a complaint…[the] Land Registry
cannot look at a matter or overturn legal decisions made by Land
Registry…my understanding from your letter is that your complaint
is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of
the title plans and that Land Registry has conspired to make these
alterations…some background to the current situation may prove
useful…. The boundary you are querying is between your property…and
what was formally 21 Lime Grove…the land nor the boundary in
question has never been affected by title LA45343…in creating a
title plan we are concerned with showing the general boundaries to
the extent of the area within the title…the boundary shown on
MS351603…is exactly the same as that which was shown on LA45086,
that, in turn remains the same from the time of its first
registration…title plans may be replaced and updated over the years
for various reasons and, because title plans are always prepared on
the latest Ordnance Survey detail…Ordnance Survey features will
change from time to time depending on when the last edition of the
title plan is prepared…I can say that nothing unusual has occurred
with regard to either of these registered titles and their
mapping…you will appreciate I find no basis for your complaint.
This is the Land Registries definitive response to your complaint.”

FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY DENIED THE MAPPING
THEY HAD PREPARED WAS FORGED.

ON AUGUST 14TH 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to
this Department about structural defects regarding your
property…the Department cannot get involved with individual cases
or question a possible court decision.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about
difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your house. This
has been passed to this department because of our responsibility
for housing. Your remarks have been noted…I should point out that
local authorities are elected autonomous bodies…if you are unhappy
with the conduct of the local authority. You may wish to complain
via their own complaints procedure…you may wish to take your case
to the Local Government Ombudsman.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICES AT HEAD
OFFICE, LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your
copy letter dated 17 July 2006 to this office. However. I regret
that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction
of Land Registry.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006 SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR. IN
A LETTER COPIED TO THE COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT (PAW/RR) WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 3rd August to the Chief Planning
Officer…[I] can confirm that the Council will not have provided any
information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance
Survey plan referred to.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 THE SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING
TO ME. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“The Council is unable to confirm any details in relation to THE
PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” as requested…I would refer you
to the letter of 12th February, 2001 from the Chief Executive
Officer confirming that point. As you are aware, Mr George Barr,
the Property Manager referred to in Maritime Housing Associations
letter of 4th March 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable
to take this matter forward.”

ON THE FORGED TRANSFER MAP COMPOSED OF TWO VERSIONS OF OS SJ 3396,
DATED 1969/1978 (BOTH OF WHICH SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE
“THE NIB”), THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE LAND REGISTRY BY MARITIME
HOUSING ASSOCIATION’S SOLICITORS IN 1994, SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY
STRUCTURE “THE NIB” HAD BEEN ERASED FROM THEM BOTH TO CREATE THEIR
TRANSFER MAP WHICH, AFTER TAXATION WAS SENT TO THE REGISTRY.

THE “LATEST” OFFICIAL COPY OF OS SJ3396 WAS DATED DECEMBER 13TH
1993 AND SHOWED NO NIB WALL ON IT, NOR DID THE 1987 EDITION. THUS,
IN LAW, MARITIME DID NOT BUY A PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE FROM SEFTON
COUNCIL AS THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” DID NOT FORM PART
OF THEIR AGGREED CONTRACT TO DO SO.

ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY DREW A TITLE MAP COMPRISING
OF OS SJ 1969/1984, SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU.
THAT TITLE NUMBER IS MS351603

THERE ARE TWO LETTTERS COPIED TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME DATED MARCH
4TH 1999, ONE TO ME AND, ONE REGARDING FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION. I
REPRODUCE COMMENTS FROM BOTH BELOW NUMBERED ONE AND 2:

THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE TWO LETTERS TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME
AND THE COUNCILS CEO’S LETTER TO ME REFERRED TO ABOVE BY THE
COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR STATE:

1. MARITIME TO ME “You should be aware…this Association took
possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton
Council. On the evidence I have it would appear…the “nib” wall was
removed during the demolition contract”

2. MARITIME TO MR BARR: “I have spoken to Bill Fawley who cannot
even recall the nib wall, and therefore, we must assume that it was
not in existence when we took possession.”

THE LETTTER FROM SEFTONS CEO’S LETTER TO ME DATED FEBRUARY 12TH
2001 AROSE FROM A COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
on February 6th 2001, AND A LETTER TO HIM DATED JANUARY 31ST 2001
FROM ME WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON THE BASIS OF FURTHER INFORMATION
PROVIDED TO ME BY MARITIME REGARDING INDEPENDENT DEMOLITION BY
SEFTON COUNCIL AFTER POSSESSION OF THE KEPLER STREET SITE BY
MARITIME - THAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994
- I ASKED THE CEO on January 31st 2001. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“Did Sefton Council have any legal liability for alleged damage
caused to my property during demolition by their contractors which
occurred after possession by Maritime housing Association Did the
Council carry out any independent demolition…SEFTON COUNCIL AND
THEIR INSURERS have told me the demolition contract…ran from
17/1/94.

ON FEBRUARY 9TH 2001 SETONS SENIOR CLAIMS MANAGER SENT A TEN PAGE
‘FAX’ TO THE COUNCILS INSURERS STATING:

“Further your phone call – letter for you. The 31/ I received the
rest copies Tech Svs have. They are still trying to clarify
internally when the actual hand over was as requested in Finance
memo to Tech Svs on 8/11 (you have copy faxed on 8/11):

ANNOTATION ON THIS ‘FAX’ CONTINUES.

I need also 8/11 letter from Tech Svs….I think is TS had sent the
letter we asked them to this would be over from our point of view
and we didn’t need to ??? to Mr R.”

ON FEBRUARY 12TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S CEO RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:

“It is not possible to answer your first question, as Legal
liability for alleged damage is assessed and dealt with by claim to
the Council’s insurers, a path that was offered to you but you have
declined to take…the land transfer by deed to Maritime Housing
Association took place on 24 December 1993…demolition work is
recorded as commencing 24 January 1994, with Practical Completion
on 31 March 1994. This is the date beyond which my Technical
Services Department say our responsibility ends…and contractor on
site between the dates July and September 1994 were not employed by
the Council. The site at Kepler Street was cleared before 14th
March 1994.”

ACCORDING TO MARITIME, THIS “CLEARANCE” INCLUDED THE NIB WALL AND,
THEREFORE BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE AND, THE TRANSFER MAP. OS SJ3396
DATED 1987 AND 1993, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY, AND MARITIME
HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOTH HAD COMPELLING EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAT
THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE, THE NIB WALL, WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON
AUGUST 31ST 1994 WHEN, THE REGISTRY CREATED THEIR FORGERY OF TITLE
MS351603 BASED ON OS SJ3396 SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE,
THE SCREEN WALL’ BETWEEN 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE, WHICH BY ALL
ACCOUNTS HAD BY THAT TIME BEEN DEMOLISHED.

SECTION 67 OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT STATES THAT AN OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT OR ANY PART OF – THE REGISTER OF TITLE…ANY DOCUMENT WHICH
IS REFERRRED TO IN THE REGISTRATION OF TITLE…IS ADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE ORIGINAL.

I HAVE A TITLE MAP SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU
PREPARED BY THE REGITRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994, AFTER IT WAS
DEMOLISHED AND REGISTERED TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY STATING THAT 19 AND 21 LIME
GROVE WERE ONCE ATTACHED, WHEN THEIR OWN MAPPING ON TITLE LA45343
DATED 1966 SHOWS THAT IT NEVER WAS .

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RELY ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTATION AND
THEREFORE, NOT POSSIBLE FOR A COMPLAINT BY MYSELF TO RESOLVE THE
MATTERS ARISING FROM TITLE MS 351603.

SEFTON COUNCIL HAVE ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH A TERRIER MAP INDICATING
THEY OWN THE LAND UNDER TITLE MS351603.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Customer Services,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

“IF YOU WISH TO FIND THE CRIMINALS, DON’T FOLLOW THE CRIMINALS,
FOLLOW THE MONEY.”

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

In 1962: Crosby Council, initiated a compulsory purchase order to
buy a plot of land to the south of Lime Grove consisting of Maple
Grove, Willow Grove, Bangor Street and Beaumaris Street which is
shown on OS SJ3396.

This land was subsequently filed under title LA45343 at the Land
Registry.

In December 1964: Land to the north of Lime Grove, bought under a
compulsory purchase order by Crosby Council, was registered under
title LA45086 at the Land Registry using OS SJ3396 dated 1955.

By 1968: Numerous streets to the north of 19 Lime Grove, including
21 Lime Grove, had been demolished, the land cleared, and
maisonettes built on it. This land became known as the Kepler
Street Estate.

One of the maisonette blocks, 21 to 39 Lime Grove, was built some 5
metres from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove.

The level of the land adjacent to 19 Lime Grove was consequently
lowered by Crosby Council’s contractors to accommodate the building
of these maisonettes, and the support that this land had previously
given to 19 Lime Groves gable wall was removed and, in so doing,
exposed the shallow footing of part of 19 Lime Grove’s gable wall.

Crosby Council’s building contractors, Mathew and Mumby,
subsequently replaced the former support with two Party Boundary
Structures in the forms of what are known as, the ‘screen wall' and
the 'old footings' some 700mm square which were constructed
abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around 1968.

The first and most significant of these structures being the ‘old
footings.’ The term 'old footings' a misnomer as they 'footed'
nothing and were in fact a ‘buttress.’ They remain in place today
and, with the land they stand on, are, and have been since 1994,
the property of Maritime Housing Association.

The second was a wall built abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime
Grove around its centre, and extending to abut the gable wall of
the maisonette block, 21 to 39 Lime Grove near its front elevation.

The location of this wall is of some significance as it was
constructed at the point where the footings of the gable wall
descend into a cellar and thus obviate the need for support beyond
that point.

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

This is borne out by the fact that the brick cladding of the gable
wall of the maisonettes was, the same brick as used to construct
the screen wall, and obviously, both structures stood on Crosby
Council’s land.

The structure the ‘screen wall’ was first shown on OS SJ3396 in
October 1969, and by October 1989, (according to a ruling in the
House of Lords) 19 Lime Grove had obtained a legal right to the
support it gave.

Beyond the rear of the screen wall where, the footings were exposed
by the excavation of the land, is where the old footings abutted
it, and from there commenced, it is abundantly clear that no other
purpose can be attributed to this constructions other than to give
support to the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove and, that purpose, in
the absence of any other, would be obvious to an engineer,
architect, surveyor or any competent builder.

This contention is borne out by the fact that the old footings
extend beyond the gable wall and continue to give support not only
to the gable wall but also to the boundary wall which, extends some
four metres from the gable wall.

The ‘old footings’ are still in situ but, have never been recorded
on an OS map. They could not be removed at any time after 1984
without causing structural damage to my property.

In 1973: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which did not
included the Star of the Sea Junior School, built in 1974, but did
included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary
structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles
between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In 1978: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which included the
Star of the Sea Junior School, the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove
with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running
at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to
39 Lime Grove.

In March 1977: The land, known as the Kepler Street Estate, filed
at the Land Registry in 1964 under the title number LA45343 using
the 1969 OS SJ3396 map: had removed from it a parcel of land
re-registered under title MS351603 which included the maisonettes
21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall'
still shown running at right angles between the respective gable
walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In April 1977 The land filed at the Land Registry under title
number LA45343 using OS SJ3396 dated 1966: had removed from it two
parcels of land that were also re-registered under title MS351603.
The 1966 OS SJ3396 did not include the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime
Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' shown running
at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to
39 Lime Grove, because in 1966 they had not been built.

In 1984/5 Sefton Council revamped the maisonettes including 21 to
39 Lime Grove and reduced the screen wall from some 5 metres long
to a 'nib wall' some 1.5 metres long and built a pier on its end.

Clearly Sefton Council also attached some significance to the
screen wall’s role of support to my gable wall, and just as
clearly, their actions prove that they owned it by virtue of them
reducing and strengthening it, something Maritime Housing
Association seemed unaware of, because when they wrote to me on
October 5th 1999 - in response to a photograph of the nib wall in
situ, taken by Sefton Council (their appointed agents) on March
14th 1994 during a survey which, in June 2000, Maritime did know
about and, which they also (then, if not before) knew was prior to
the demolition of the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove - they
stated:

“Sefton as our agent, are responsible for controlling building
operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition
was still taking place up to September 1994, which had nothing to
do with Maritime…looking at the photograph you have sent me I
notice what appears to be either a newly built brick pier attached
to your wall, or an old pier that has been repointed…I would
question who constructed, or repointed, the brick pier. ”

In 1989: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen
wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

“Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition
of the existing maisonettes.”

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

On September 25th 1992: The three titles, taken from Titles LA54086
and LA45343, and filed under MS351603, were Registered separately
to Sefton MBC at Bootle Town Hall, and Southport Town Hall.

On October 28th 1993: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub
Committee resolved, that:

“Demolition of maisonette blocks at Kepler Street prior to
development by Maritime Housing Association. (1) That the
appropriate officer be authorised to implement the demolition works
by acceptance of the tender of GTB Demolition company…in the sum of
£95,693 subject to the land being acquired by Maritime Housing
Association by December 31st 1993. That subject to (1) above the
Borough Property Services Officer be authorised to issue a letter
of intent in advance of formal contract documentation.”

On December 16th 1992: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub
Committee considered the report of the Borough Property Services
Officer recommending the transfer of land for two new build sites
to Maritime Housing Association.

On December 13th 1993: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing
no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On December 24th 1993 Sefton Council and Maritime Housing
Association, after taxation, signed and sealed the transfer
documents for the sale of 3.5 acres of land under titles 1. (a)
LA45086 and (b) LA45343.

This land consisted of the three plots filed in March and April
1977 with the Land Registry under the title numbers LA45086 and
LA45343 re-referenced to Sefton on September 25th 1992 which, the
transfer document shows were to be given a new title number with
another two parcels of land, i.e.:

(c) the land comprised in an agreement dated 7 August 1967 made
between Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese & Trustees
Incorporating (1) and the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the
Borough of Crosby.

(d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated December
16th 1993 made by Michael Scott.

There were on December 24th 1993, to my knowledge, five distinct OS
SJ3396, maps of the Kepler Street estate available, they were:

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

The fifth dated December 13th 1993 – showing no screen wall

Bound with the transfer documents was a ‘cut and pasted’ version of
OS map SJ3396 comprising of: an ‘outer section’ being OS SJ3396
dated 1978 showing the Star of the Sea School and,

an ‘inner section’ depicting the land filed under titles MS351603,
united by a section of public highway named Maple Close.

The screen wall, despite being on both of the versions of OS SJ3396
used in the forgery, had been erased from this transfer map.

The altered OS map SJ3396 provided for sale of the land is a forged
instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and
Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depict the presence of the
party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly
calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act
1925 as neither Sefton or Maritime showed "due diligence" in the
sale of the land in breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions
Act 1991.

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

“It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any
boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of
the date herein between the property herby transferred and the
adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are
maintainable and repairable as such.”

This land is identified at 3, of the transfer documents as land
referenced by Planning Permission as 93/03897/S. this reference was
given to me by Sefton Council’s Planning Department as land
provided for: “Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings
after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

This permission was the permission granted on August 13th 1993.

The above dwellings are all now in situ on the land registered to
Sefton Council under title MS351603 on September 25th 1992, taken
from title LA43086 1977.

These dwellings are also identified in a ‘memo’ from Sefton’s Mr
Barr, to Sefton’s Mr Williams: Referenced HSG 1188/2, and dated
November 12th 1999 in which Mr Barr states, with regard to 19 Lime
Grove – with a twist as to responsibility:

“This particular dwelling lies within an area which was redeveloped
by the Council in conjunction with Maritime Housing Association
during the period January 1994 to September 1995. The work
basically involved the demolition of 7 blocks of 4 storey
maisonettes and the construction of 49 new 2 storey traditionally
built houses as part of the City Challenge program relating to
relocation of residents of the former Rimrose Housing Estate.”

And further, with another twist:

On November 16th 1999, Fawley Construction, Maritime’s Building
contractor, wrote the following to me:

1. “Our site plan 417/01 was adapted from Sefton Council’s drawing
HSG 1187.1A which did not show a nib wall attached to your
property, therefore one was not included on our drawing submitted
for planning approval.”

2. Drawing HSG 1187, a used as part of the transfer map, and is
marked as a Sefton Planning Department drawing based on OS SJ3396
dated 1978, which has had the screen wall erased from it.

3. This clearly shows that Sefton and Fawley, if not Maritime, had
a drawing, and knowledge, at the planning stage of the development
in August 1993 that showed no nib wall abutting my gable wall. All
three had contractual obligations to each other.

On August 31st 1994 the land shown on the forged OS map used to
transfer the land at both Kepler Street, shown on title LA45086,
and Maple Grove, shown on LA45343 which was united by the public
highway, Maple Close, was registered by the Land Registry under
title MS351603 to Maritime Housing, at 2, of the office copy of the
Property Register dated February 3rd 2006, it states:

“2. (21.01.1994) A transfer of the land in this title dated 24
December 1993 made between (1) The metropolitan Borough of Sefton
and (2) Maritime Housing Association Limited contains the following
provision:-

2, It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any
boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of
the date herein between the property herby transferred and the
adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are
maintainable and repairable as such.”

The title map that accompanies this title is a forgery which again,
like the transfer map is composed of two versions of OS SJ3386 cut
and pasted together, this time, the outer section is that of OS
SJ3396 dated 1984 showing the Star of the Sea junior school, and
the inner section, that of OS SJ3396 dated 1969, clumsily overlaid
on it which has, amongst other things, removed the pavement between
Seaforth Road and 19 Lime Grove and the entire pavement from
Seaforth Road and the opposite side of Lime Grove through to Maple
Close from it.

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

The altered OS map SJ3396 draw by the Land Registry for
registration of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a)
and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not
depicts the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen
wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act
1925 as the Registry did not show "due diligence" in the production
of this title map and also breach of s. 2 of the Property
Misdescriptions Act 1991.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Harris

YOUR RESPONSE TO:

Will you confirm or deny that licensees can lawfully combine
different OS maps to create maps of none existent land or features
on land from two or more different maps.

AND:

For the absence of doubt, are you refusing to answer my FOI Request
regarding the alteration of OS mapping - copies of which have been
sent to you showing precisely what mapping has been altered
(forged) and exactly how this was done by providing the Survey with
hard copy evidence of the altered mapping and, showing how the
forgers used the same cut and paste method as demonstrated, to
produce the altered mapping which, cannot compare with any mapping
that has been legitimately produced by the Survey.

YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST BECAUSE:

"There is a possibility that in doing so a competitor might gain a
commercially competitive advantage over both the Ordnance Survey
and/or its licensees."

AND ARE NOT PREPARED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THESE 'ADVANTAGES' MAY BE ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION

A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



1. ON DECEMBER 24TH 1993 MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOUGHT
THE
LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE - THE KEPLER STREET SITE -
FROM
SEFTON COUNCIL WITH A FORGED MAP WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE NIB
OR
SCREEN WALL.



2. ON MARCH 29TH 1994 SEFTON AND MARITIME INSPECTED THE SITE
AND
PROPOSED TO GIVE ME A ONE METRE WIDE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY
GABLE
WALL. AT THIS TIME THE NIB WALL WAS IN SITU. THIS PROPOSAL
WAS TO
BE AMENDED TO THE SITE PLANS BY MARITIME’S CONTRACTOR’
FAWLEY.



3. PRIOR TO PLANNING PERMISSION FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION - AT
THE
WRITTEN REQUEST OF SEFTON, MARITIME'S APPOINTED AGENTS
-SUBMITTED
PLAN 417/01 FOR PLANNING PERMISSION USING A SEFTON
DRAWING HSG
1187.1A WHICH THEY CONFIRM DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR
SCREEN WALL.



MARITIME STATE THE ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND WAS FENCED OFF:



"On the authority of this Association and Sefton Council as
our
consultants...clearly as the land was in our ownership we did
not
require your permission"



4. A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS FOUND THE NIB WALL WAS DEMOLISHED
BETWEEN
MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 1994.



5. SEFTON HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU DATED MARCH
7TH
1994 AND I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU TAKEN
AFTER
APRIL 21ST 1994. FAWLEY HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING NO NIB WALL
WHICH
THEY SAY WAS TAKEN IN SEPTEMBER 1994.



6. ON JUNE 28TH 1994 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PLANS 417/01 TO
417/17
WERE GRANTED TO MARITIME HOUSING AND FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION.
INCLUDED
IN THOSE PLANS WAS THE PROPOSED ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND
ALONG MY
GABLE WALL WITHOUT THE NIB WALL, AS VERIFIED BY SEFTONS
DRAWING HSG
1187. 1A AND WHICH SEFTON PASSED.



7. ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY REGISTERED THE
KEPLER
STREET SITE TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION USING A FORGED
OS MAP
THAT SHOWED THE SCREEN WALL IN SITU.



Nobody has said the maps referred to above are not forged.



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance
with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is
the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of
this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain
cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless

(a) they are
defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may
specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be
deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a
condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the
person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



(5) A request or consent under subsection (4) above shall be
in
writing



(6) The authority shall within the relevant period from the
deposit
of the plans give notice to the person by whom or on whose
behalf
they were deposited whether they have been passed or
rejected



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



(a) specify any condition subject to which they have been
passed,
and


(b) state that the passing of the plans operates as an approval
of
them only for the purposes of the requirements of



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



(a) a certificate given by a person approved for the purposes
of
this subsection to the effect that the proposed work, if
carried
out in accordance with the deposited plans, will comply
with such
provisions of the regulations prescribed for the purposes
of this
subsection as may be specified in the certificate, and



(b) such evidence as may be prescribed that an approved
scheme
applies, or the prescribed insurance cover has been or will
be
provided, in relation to the certificate



(10) In any case where a question arises under this section
between
a local authority and a person who proposes to carry out
any work

(a) whether plans of the proposed work are in conformity
with
building regulations, or



(b) whether the local authority are prohibited from rejecting
plans
of the proposed work by virtue of subsection

(9) above, that person
may refer the question to the Secretary of
State for his
determination; and an application for a reference
under this
subsection shall be accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed.



(11) Where


(a) deposited plans accompanied by such a certificate and
such
evidence as are mentioned in subsection

(9) above are passed by the
local authority, or



(b) notice of the rejection of deposited plans so accompanied
is
not given within the relevant period from the deposit of the
plans,
the authority may not institute proceedings under section 35
below
for a contravention of building regulations that


(i) arises out of the carrying out of the proposed work
in
accordance with the plans, and



(ii) is a contravention of any of the provisions of the
regulations
specified in the certificate.



(12) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, “the
relevant
period”, in relation to the passing or rejection of plans,
means
five weeks or such extended period (expiring not later than
two
months from the deposit of the plans) as may before the
expiration
of the five weeks be agreed in writing between the
person
depositing the plans and the local authority.



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance
with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is
the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of
this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain
cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them subject to
either
or both of the conditions set out in subsection (3) below.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may
specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be
deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a
condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the
person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work have been passed under
section
16 above by a local authority, the person by or on whose
behalf the
plans were in accordance with building regulations
deposited with
the authority may, and in such cases as may be
prescribed shall,
for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the
authority to any
proposed departure or deviation from the plans as
passed, deposit
plans of the departure or deviation.



(2) Section 16 above applies in relation to plans deposited
under
subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to the
plans
originally deposited.



CLEARLY THE AMENDMENT SHOWN ON PLAN 417/01 WAS NOT REGARDED
AS
BEING DEFECTIVE UNDER THE ACT AS IT WAS PASSED.



BY THE TIME THE NIB WALL (SCREEN WALL) WAS FILED ONTO THE TITLE
BY
THE LAND REGISTRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 (AND, ACCORDING TO
THE
DISTRICT JUDGE), IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE.



BY SEPTEMBER 1994 IT WAS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO HAVE BEEN

DEMOLISHED.


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Tony Harris

YOUR RESPONSE FEBRUARY 5TH 2009:

“Where however, mapping is altered and used for illicit reasons it
becomes a matter for the law.”

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING FROM THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
ACT 1984: EVIDENCE FROM COMPUTER AND DOCUMENTARY RECORDS

S.68

(1) Subject to section 69 below, a statement in a document shall be
admissible in any proceedings as evidence of any fact stated
therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if--

(a) The document is or forms part of a record compiled by a person
acting under a duty from information supplied by a person (whether
acting under a duty or not) who had, or may reasonably be supposed
to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in that
information; and

(b) any condition relating to the person who supplied the
information which is specified in subsection (2) below is
satisfied.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are--

(a) that the person who supplied the information--

(i) is dead, or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit
to attend as a witness; 


(ii) is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably
practicable to secure his attendance; or

(iii) cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time
which has elapsed since he supplied or acquired the information and
to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters
dealt with in that information;

(b) that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the
person who supplied the information but that he cannot be
identified; and


(c) that, the identity of the person who supplied the information
being known all reasonable steps have been taken to find him, but
that he cannot be found

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the admissibility of
any evidence that would be admissible apart from this section

s. 69.

(1) In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a
computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated
therein unless it is shown--

(a) that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the
statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;

(b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly,
or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly
or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of
the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(c) that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under
subsection (2) below are satisfied

(2) Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any
proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by
virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as
may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at
such times as may be so required

s. 74:--

(3) In any proceedings where evidence is admissible of the fact
that the accused has committed an offence, in so far as that
evidence is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings for
a reason other than a tendency to show in the accused a disposition
to commit the kind of offence with which he is charged, if the
accused is proved to have been convicted of the offence … he shall
be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is
proved.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice . . .

(a) the admissibility in evidence of any conviction which would be
admissible apart from this section; or

(b) the operation of any enactment whereby a conviction or a
finding of fact in any proceedings is for the purposes of any other
proceedings made conclusive evidence of any fact

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on
which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to
the court that, having regard to all the circumstances in which the
evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have
such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the
court ought not to admit it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law
requiring a court to exclude evidence

Schedule 3 Part I

1. Section 68 (1) above applies whether the information contained
in the document was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was
supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was
supplied was acting under a duty; and applies also where the person
compiling the record is himself the person by whom the information
is supplied.

6. Any reference in section 68 above or this Part of this Schedule
to a person acting under a duty includes a reference to a person
acting in the course of any trade, business, profession or other
occupation in which he is engaged or employed or for the purposes
of any paid or unpaid office held by him.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear tony Harris

I REFER YOU TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULY 5TH 2006 AND JULY 12TH
2007.

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I WROTE AND FILED AT COURT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE
OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENTITLED “REPORT OF FALSIFIED LAND
RECORDS.” DETAILING WITH COPIES, HOW THE MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD
TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AS KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, HAD BEEN
CONVEYED AND REGISTERED USING FORGED MAPPING.

ON JULY 11TH 2006 THE COURT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“District Judge Fitzgerald has asked me to write to you and
acknowledge receipt of the document that you filed on 5th July
2006, i.e. Report of Falsified Land Records and a letter from the
Information Commission dated 25th November 2003.”

SHAYNE BROWN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED MY REPORT ON JULY 12TH 2006 STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the Report of Falsified
Records…the Department for Communities and Local Government has
considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have
responsibility for the issue raised. However, we have forwarded
your letter today to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

ON JULY 17TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED ON MARITIME HOUSING
ASSOCIATION AND SEFTON COUNCIL A “CRIME REPORT” TO MERSEYSIDE
POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED TO REGISTER THE LAND AT
KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, AND COPIED IT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER,
MR PRESCOTT FOR FORWARDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL
AFFAIRS.

ON JULY 24TH 2006, MS FOX, THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO LAWYERS
FROM LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its
remit.”

ON JULY 27TH I WROTE TO SHAYNE BROWN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENDING HIM MORE EVIDENCE.

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006, MRS WEAVER FROM THE LAND REGISTRIES COVENTRY
OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY “LETTER TO THE OFFICE
OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER” STATING:

“My understanding from your letter…is that there has been some
fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that
the Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some
background…may prove useful. The boundary that you are querying is
between your property, number 19, and what was formally number 21
Lime Grove. Number 21 was purchased by The Mayor Aldermen and
Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby on 2 September 1960…the
application for registration of the Council was lodged on 10 August
1964…it was included in title LA45086. It was included in that
title from that time until it was sold again…to Maritime Housing
Association on 24th December 1993. At that time it was removed from
title LA45086 and registered under title MS351603.”

THIS STATEMENT NEGATES THE TWO FILED PLANS OF TWO TITLES FILED AS
MS351603 THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM TITLES LA45086 AND LA45343 IN
MARCH AND APRIL 1977.

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 I FILED AT COURT THE FORGED MAPPING OF THE LAND
SOLD AT KEPLER STREET AND COPIED TO:

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

“The party boundary structure ‘the nib wall’ was, was according to
you demolished between March and September 1994, from the above,
how do you determine this.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006, MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I can confirm that the Council will not have provided any
information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance
Survey plan referred to, nor any other Ordnance Survey plan.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to
this Department about structural defects regarding your property. I
am sorry to read about the problems you are currently experiencing
and appreciate this must be a difficult situation for you.
Unfortunately, this Department cannot get involved in individual
cases or questions of possible court decisions. I would suggest
that you continue to seek legal advice.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR,
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Council is unable to confirm any detail in relation to the
party boundary structure “the nib” as requested…Mr George Barr, the
property manager referred to in Maritime Housing Association
Limited’s letter of March 4th 1999, is now deceased and therefore I
am unable to take this matter any further.”

ON AUGUST 21st 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about
difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your property.
This has been passed to this Department because of our
responsibility for housing…this Department has no power to
intervene in private property disputes of this nature…planning
functions, such as formulating development plan policies,
determining planning applications and enforcing planning control
are best carried out by the democratically elected district and, in
certain cases, county councils…if you are unhappy with the conduct
of the local authority, you may wish to complain via their own
complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied…you might wish to
take your case to the Local government Ombudsman can investigate
whether there has been maladministration.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006. MR IAN FLOWERS OF THE LAND REGISTRIES LONDON
OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your
copy letter of 17 July to this office. However, I regret that the
issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Land Registry. I will send a copy of this letter to the DCA for
their reference.”

ON AUGUST 30th 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your further letter of 25 August with enclosures
about maps affecting your property…this Department cannot get
involved with private property disputes. I would suggest that you
seek legal advice in order to resolve this matter.”

ON AUGUST 31ST 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR,
SENT ME A TERRIER MAP, REFERENCE LA076317 2005, PREPARED BY THE
COUNCILS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
REGARDING LAND, DONATED TO ME IN APRIL 1994 BY MARITIME HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, (BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FENCED OFF ALONG MY GABLE WALL AFTER
THE PLANNING APPLICATION STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT – ON THE WRITTEN
INSTRUCTION OF THE COUNCIL) WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TERRIER MAP:

“I thank you for your letter 31st August 2006 in which you sought
information regarding a 1 metre strip of land. I am enclosing a
plan from which you can clearly be seen the area in which you are
interested.”

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 MR WILLIAMS, SEFTONS TECHNICAL SERVICES
DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 21st August 2006 and would advise that I
will not enter into any further correspondence in the matters
raised in this letter.”

ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2006 I WROTE, AND FILED AND SERVED A FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION REQUEST TO MS ELWOOD FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE
COUNCIL’S POWERS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF MARITIMES LAND IN
1994, AND COPIED IT TO:

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN A FOURTEEN PAGE
VERY DETAILED LETTER TO MR POWEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET STATING, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING
FACT REGARDING THE TITLES OF THE LAND:

False Land Records

“With regard to your letter dated September 12th 2006 and the
transcripts of telephone conversations with The Land Registry in
Birkenhead (The Registry) which I presume you have received by
recorded delivery.

As of today I do not know who owned the land registered at Kepler
Street and Maple Grove Seaforth (the land MS351603) between
December 24th 1993 and August 31st 1994, nor evidently do Sefton
MBC (Sefton) or Maritime Housing Association (Maritime). I present
the following conflicting fact which I have been given and compare
them with the actual facts of the matter. I give letter references
in square brackets, and where appropriate print in bold what I
consider to be pertinent points. While the purpose of this letter
is to highlight the matter of land ownership, it cannot be done
without reference to the demolition of the party boundary structure
or the supposed insurance claims made by myself. I will keep these
to a minimum. What follows is only a small percentage of the events
begun in 1977 or earlier.

The Information

Maritime are averred to have become the "owners" of 'the land
MS351603' on December 24th 1994 by Maritime, Sefton and The
Registry, Fawley Construction. On October 19th 2005 District Judge
Bellamy made the following statement regarding the 'land MS352603'.

"On 6th September 2000 Mr Robinson, by virtue of a Land Registry
search ascertained the Maritime Housing Association were the
registered proprietors of the above land from January 1994."

The ownership by Maritime is stated by The Registry to have been
triggered by the transfer document dated December 24th 1994 but,
the title number MS351603 is not recorded on that document,
instead, a title number is said to be awaiting designation. The
title numbers of LA45343 and LA45086 are used to identify 'the
land' that is sold to Maritime by Sefton…

The Titles

Title LA45086 was filed in March 1977 using OS SJ3396 dated 1969.

Title LA45343 was filed in April 1977 using section B of OS SJ3396
dated 1966. Section A of this map would show the land as it was
prior to the demolition of the area of land comprising; Peach
Grove, Birch Street, Alder Street, Vine Grove, Vine Street, Plum
Street, Date Street and Kepler Street circa 1966.

On January 21st 1994, by virtue of the transfer documents The
Registry aver that Maritime, the owners of the land from December
24th 1993, became the "registered proprietors" of the land 'greened
out', i.e. outlined in green and, stated by The Registry to have
been carried out on January 21st 1994 from the filed title plans of
titles LA45343 and LA45086.

Title LA45086

On February 3 2006 I obtained the Property Register from The
Registry. At 1 of this document it is recorded that 'the land'
inter alia is:

"The freehold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above
title...being...Lime Grove 1 to 27 (odd numbers) "

Numbers 1 to 27 Lime Grove are shown on OS SJ3396 dated 1966 and
comprise of the terrace 1 to 19 Lime Grove, a large detached house
numbered 21 Lime Grove and a further three house terrace numbered
23 to 27 Lime Grove.

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

"The land edged in green on the filed plan has been removed from
this title and registered under the title number or numbers shown
in green on the said plan."

This 'greening out by The Registry is recorded on Section B of OS
SJ3396 dated March 1975 and the new title number is recorded as
MS351603 [edged in red on the title plan] which pre dates the filed
plan of March 1977 and clearly uses a different version of OS
SJ3396 than the 1966 version. The registered proprietors are
recorded as Sefton MBC at The Town Hall, Orial Road Bootle on May
12th 1976.

Fact

By September 25th 1992 two separate parcels of land were registered
as owned by Sefton under the same 'unique' title number MS351603 -
from different versions of OS SJ3396 - at two separate Council
locations. These being those 'greened out' of OS SJ3396 dated 1966,
and OS SJ3396 dated 1967, and both filed and recorded under the
same title number on May 12th 1976.

Registration of MS351603

On February 4th 2003, The Registry sent me a filed plan of MS351603
dated August 31st 1994. This plan comprises of; the amalgamated
title plans of LA45343 dated May 12 1976 and; the amalgamated title
plans of LA45086 dated May 12 1976 as recorded above.

It appears that Maritime may not have filed the August 31st 1994
registration - another fact withheld from me by The Registry - and
did in fact have the completed site registered to them in 'mid
1995'. The Registry refuse to disclose any detail about this
registration.

I look forward to a constructive response from you, or better,
someone with more authority, i.e. The Deputy Prime Minister.

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2006 THE ASSISTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
ROSEMARY AGNEW WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
06/C/07976/RA/DH:

“The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your
complaint against Sefton Council and write to you…after checking
with the Council it appears that your complaint has not yet been
dealt with through the Council’s complaint procedure. So: I will
send a copy of your complaint to the Council and ask the Chief
Executive to put it through the Council’s own complaint procedure,
to keep you informed of the progress, and to let you know the
outcome.”

ON OCTOBER 3RD 2006, LYNN ROWLAND FROM THE REGISTRY IN BIRKENHEAD
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE,
SEAFORTH:

“In order for us to deal with your query, could you please provide
us with the reference on the letter sent to you by the Coventry
Land Registry. This will enable us to call up any previous
correspondence.”

ON OCTOBER 12TH 2006 MR GIBSON, SEFTON’S PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASSISTANT
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “REFUSAL NOTICE
(VEXATIOUS REPEATED REQUESTS).”: [CAPITALISATION ADDED)

“Further to your numerous letters regarding YOUR NIB WALL and the
title to your property AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. I write to inform
you that your request for information will not be processed. I have
decided that your request is vexatious and repeated requests have
been responded to over the years…the reason I have concluded your
request is vexatious and that repeated requests have been received
and responded to is that the council has spent hundreds of man
hours dealing with your requests REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY 17 LIME
GROVE, and the INSURANCE CLAIM WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS NOT MADE.”

ON OCTOBER 17TH 2006, SALLY WALKER, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, FROM THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE O6/100048/SPC/sw:

“Please note you complaint has been allocated the above new
reference number…we have at the moment more complaints than we can
give our investigators but will allocate your complaint as soon as
we can…we will contact you again when your complaint has been
allocated…please note we may copy to the council any papers you
have sent us about your complaint. This is to inform the Council
that your complaint has been brought to our attention

ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS, CASEWORKER AND ADVICE OFFICER
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME, REGARDING
MY LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL DATED JULY 5TH 2006, USING THE RFERENCE
END0124895 STATING: (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“Your letter refers to a request for assessment (REFERENCE:
03-36599/06/AD) THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE A NUMBER OF YEARS
AGO WHICH FOCUSED ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BY SEFTON MBC.
WE WERE UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR
ASSESSMENT AS WE CONCLUDED THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION DID NOT
FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. WE REACHED
THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INFORMATION
THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU DID NOT FORM PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO PROVIDED FURTHER
INFORMATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT HELD UNDER A RELEVANT
FILING SYSTEM. I can only repeat the Information that MR DAMMS, the
caseworker who completed the assessment, provided to you. During
the course of our investigations, SEFTON MBC CONFIRMED THAT THE
‘MISSING DOCUMENTATION (THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO
YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCCESS REQUEST) WAS NOT HELD
IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM…we can only confirm that it is OUR
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ‘MISSING’ DOCUMENTS WERE NOT HELD IN A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM.”

ON OCTOBER 23RD 2006 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
HEADED “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE.:

“It is my role on behalf of the Chief Superintendent…to conduct
investigations into such matters…I would be grateful if you would
contact me…in order to arrange a suitable appointment to discuss
the matter in detail,”

ON OCTOBER 24TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO
MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHICH “COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE POLICE” THEY REFERRED TO.

ON OCTOBER 25TH 2006, PATRICK BROUGH, THE LAND REGISTRAR AT
BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME
GROVE.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“We have on file a full copy of the comprehensive letter written to
you on 4 August by Mrs D M Weaver, the Land Registry at our
Coventry office. As Mrs Weaver made clear in the final paragraph of
that letter, it contained Land Registries definitive response on
the issues you had raised in respect of titles LA45086, LA45343 and
MS351603. I do not therefore propose to enter into any further
correspondence regarding the matter. It would NOT in any event be
appropriate for the Land Registry to comment on QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE ASKED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WHICH,
THEY HAVE, FOR REASONS STATED IN THEIR RECENT LETTER TO YOU,
REFUSED TO ANSWER.”

ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“I refer to your letter of 30 October…the Information Commission’s
Office conducted an assessment in respect of Sefton Council
following a complaint that you submitted to us in 2003. However, in
the course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of
your personal data. We based our of our assessment on the
correspondence that both you and Sefton provided to us in the
course of our investigation. However, Sefton Council never provided
us with any of the documents that you had requested from them…you
have enclosed a print out of your council tax account with your
letter. You have asked us to confirm whether this document will not
be personal data…because it is not part of a relevant filing
system…it appears that the council holds your council tax records
on computer. For the purpose of the DPA this information is likely
to be your personal data and as such you have a right of access to
this data…if the Council held a paper copy of this information at
the time of your request, and this document was not held in a
relevant filing system, you would not have been entitled to a copy
of this information under the DPA.”

ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM MERSEYSIDE
POLICE under the reference TK/ih/6VDDW ACKNOWLEDGEING MY LETTER
DATED NOVEMBER 9TH 2006:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent XXXX, Area
Commander for Sefton…Constable xxxx will reply to you directly.”

ON NOVEMBER 9TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.” IN ANSWER TO
MY LETTTER OF NOVEMBER 6TH 2006 COPIED TO (CAPITALIATION ADDED):

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

“ The advice that we provided to Sefton Metropolitan Borough
Council following the assessment we conducted IN 2004 regarding the
COMPLAINT that you submitted to our office about Sefton Council.
The outcome of OUR ASSESSMENT was explained to you when we
concluded our investigation…I can confirm that the Freedom of
Information Act does not provided an individual with the right to
have INACCURATE DATA amended…I can confirm that we have now closed
this case and that the large volume of correspondence that you have
enclosed with your last letter will be HELD ON FILE for information
only…we will be in touch with you shortly regarding the subject
access request that you made to this office on 21 October 2006.”

ON NOVEMBER 16th 2006, FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORK AND ADVICE
MANAGER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
UNDER EFERENCE FOII/486SAR/310.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You first of all asked us for copies of all the correspondence
and, if any, faxes emails and telephone conversations regarding
[your] REQUESTS to the Commission…given that your letter of 21
October 2006 was only concerned with…case reference 03/36599/06…we
have supplied you with the communications WE EXCHANGED WITH SEFTON
COUNCIL in relation to 03/36599/06.”

03/36599/06 WAS A “REQUEST” REGARDING THE INFORMATION WITHHELD BY
SEFTON COUNCIL DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST 1994
WHICH, HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER DATA OF FORGED MAPPING.

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I RECEIVED TWO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN DATED NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, THE FIRST
REFERENCED 06/C/10048.SPC3: THE SECOND REFERENCED 06/C/10048/RA.

ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you are in dispute with the council over
whether you owe, or have ever owed, council tax payments…it is not
the role of the Information Commissioners Office to assess whether
or not an individual is liable for council tax payments and we have
neither the resources or expertise to do so…the amount of money
that you owe in council taxes has been considered by the
Magistrates Court and you have been issued with two liability
orders. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be unable to
overturn a decision that has been made by the courts…you have
indicated that you have made a subject access request to access
your computer records, but that you have ‘been unable to obtain
them’…you could consider a complaint if you felt the council had
not responded to your request in accordance with the Data
Protection Act 1998. However, you would need to provide us with a
copy of your request letter …and any other correspondence from the
council relating to your request…it would appear that the Local
Government Ombudsman is better placed to consider your complaint
about whether the council has correctly assessed your council tax
liability.”

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I SENT MS HOWKINS THE INFORMATION SHE HAD
REQUESTED AND COPIED IT TO:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you have pursued the matter through the
courts…before we can take any action in respect of your complaint
to this office we need you to provide us with details of the courts
response to your claim against the council…we would be grateful if
you could provide details of the outcome of your court case,
including copies of any correspondence that you have received from
the court in respect of this matter. Once we have received this
additional information from you we will consider how best to
progress your complaint.”

ON DECEMBER 4TH 2006 I WROTE AGAIN TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
ENCLOSING 22 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FALSE LAND RECORDS AND
FORGED MAPPING AND COPIER TO:

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

ON DECEMBER 5TH 2006, TED POWELL, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY
PRIME MINISTER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter to John Prescott MP to which I am
replying on his behalf…the matters you have raised are the
responsibility of the Department of Communities and Local
Government. I have therefore passed your correspondence to that
Department so that your concerns may be addressed in more detail.”

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2006 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ACKNOWLEDGED MY
CORRESPONCE UNDER 06/C/10048/SPC3.

ON DECEMBER 14TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO LORD FALCONER,
ENCLOSING SEVENTY FOUR PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND COPIED TO:

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

“The court and the Government appear not to be able to deal with
the deceit which over the years have escalated to the present
state, absorbing tens of thousands of pounds of public money, and
occurred seemingly centered on the unlawful sale of land by Sefton
Council to Maritime housing Association in 1993/4. It is quite
clear that some parties in this matter should be sent to prison
rather than the threat of prison, loss of my home and massive
unfounded costs and fallacious liability orders for Council Tax,
obtained by perjury, being used against myself in full view of the
authorities…the matter now needs to go to the Court of Human Rights
as a matter of great urgency and not be passed around like a bad
smell. Please note it is the duty of senior members of the
Government to keep the courts independent and not let them become
subverted from within, or from without.”

ON 13TH DECEMBER MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
REFERENCED Misc AND HEADED “COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE”:

“I refer to the above matter in relation to your on-going issues
and various correspondences…I have reviewed the matter once again
and would refer you to the letter sent to you by D/I xxxv.”

THE ENCLOSED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2005 HEADED “LETTERS OF
COMPLAINT” STATED:

“I have indicated on several occasions there are no criminal
offences committed by any party against you or your property in
relation to your claim for damages. This is a civil matter between
yourself and other parties. The allegation of perjury against
members of staff of Sefton Council was investigated and there were
no offences committed. As indicated by Superintendent xxxx in his
letter to you we are not prepared to communicate with you any
further. You should refer all of your future correspondence to
those parties you hold responsible for damage.”

ON DECEMBER 19TH 2006, NATALIE JADE HOLE, CUSTOMER LIASON UNIT, FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 7 December addressed to the Rt Hon
Ruth Kelly MP regarding false land records. The Department of Local
Government does not have responsibility for the issue you have
raised. Your letter has therefore been sent to the Department for
Constitutional affairs.”

ON December 21st 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2006 in response to my
request of 29 November 2006…you are seeking access to your council
tax records …we will only consider whether or not the council
responded to your subject access request of 15 November 2005 in
accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998…I
have therefore written to the council to ask it to confirm whether
it has provided you with the information that you requested. If the
council has not provided you with this data, I have asked it to
confirm whether it will now do so, if the council does not intend
to provide you with the information that you have requested, I have
asked it to clarify the exemption within the Act upon which it is
relying to withhold this data.”

ON JANUARY 10TH 2007, MR DANNY O’ SULLIVAN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER
SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

“Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2006 addressed to the
Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will send you a reply by
30 January 2007…if we decide your letter is best answered by
another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has
been transferred.”

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007 I WROTE TO THE HOME SECRETARY, JOHN REID
REGARDING THE REFUSAL OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF
FORGED TITLE MAPS BY THE LAND REGISTRY.

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 IN RESPONSE TO “COPY LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS”
SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY:

“An inspection of our system indicates that 19 Lime Grove is not
registered therefore we would not have any documents relating to
the property on our files.”

ME ON JANUARY 15TH 2007 WITH REGARD TO FURTHER COPY CORRESPONDENCE
AND A ‘FEEDBACK FORM’ MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO
UNDER REFERENCE YV000098:

“Your letter will be forwarded to the Area Commander at Sefton for
his attention. You should receive a response within 21 days.”

ON JANUARY 17TH 2007, JEREMY DONALDSON, HEAD OF THE LAND REGISTRY
AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, ON BEHALF OF
PETER COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JANUARY
12TH TO MS DOWKIN IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER MS361603 LAND AT
KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH” UNDER REFERENCE
ACRT/700/06/118/JRD”

“I refer you to the letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mrs Weaver…I
have nothing to add to what Mrs Weaver said.”

ON JANUARY 26TH 2007 KERRRY LOCK, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ON BEHALF OF JOHN
REID UNDER REFERENCE T1944/7:

“Thank you for your letter…regarding your wish to formally report a
crime to the police…the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police is
responsible for the day to day operational management of the force
and not the Home Secretary…Ministers do not have the authority to
intervene in operational matters. If you wish to make a
complaint…contact their Professional Standards
department…alternatively you can make your complaint through the
Merseyside Police Authority…or the …ipcc.”

ON JANUARY 29TH 2007, DINESH BHATT,FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT
OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED CSU/20492:

“We are the third tier in Her Majesty’s Court Service…we
investigate complaints concerning the administration of HMCS. We
cannot investigate complaints concerning judicial fraud…I note that
you have already reported the matter of fraud to Merseyside
Police.”

ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL
CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER”
UNDER REFERENCE 83360:

“The issue raised is outside of the remit of this department.
Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the HM Land Registry,
so that they can consider its contents.”

ON FEBRUARY1ST 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.:

“We have now received a response from the council’s Data Protection
Officer. He states that the Revenue Manager has indicated that your
request was answered at the time…the Revenue Manager has also
stated that the council hold hard copies of the documents if
required and, in view of this…I shall ask for them to be copied to
you again.”

ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 I WROTE TO THE CHIEF CONSABLE OF MERSEYSIDE
POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AT
KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH AND COPIED TO:

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON FEBRUARY 6TH 2007 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER
REFERENCED SI/lh6VDDW THANKING ME FOR MY “COMPLAINT” OF FEBRUARY
2ND 2007 AND STATING:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent xxxx, Area
Commander for the Sefton area, as he is the officer who has been
dealing with your investigation.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is no evidence that the Council have concealed records.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MRS S HACKNEY, SECRETARY, WROTE TO ME FROM
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE UNDER THE REFERENCE
006/C/10048/CSO/SH STATING:

“Your complaint has now been allocated to Mr Oxley.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE
06/C/10048/CSO STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I RECALL that you submitted a complaint about the issue of YOUR
NIB WALL to the Ombudsman IN 1995…I have considered what you have
submitted with your current complaint and it is my view that this
concerns basically THE SAME ISSUE…I understand that the Police…are
no longer prepared to communicate further with you on this matter…I
can see no benefit in investigating your complaint [because] this
is a PRIVATE MATTER and not one of public administration.”

ON FEBRUARY 27TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME
FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER REFERENCE 0375/02/07
REGARDING A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

“The contents of your letter concerning Maritime Housing
Association have been noted…if you wish to take the matter further
you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that
this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer
such advice.”

ON FEBRUARY 28TH 2007, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME in answer to a letter to her
dated February 28th 2007 UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is nothing further that I can add to my previous comments.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE
06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING MY ALLEGED COMPLAINT DATED 1995, AND THE
LIABILITY ORDERS OBTAINED BY SEFTON FOR NONE EXISTENT COUNCIL TAX
LIABILITIES, STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You have asked in your latest letter for RECORD OF YOUR COMPLAINT
which you say was not made at that time because the OWNERSHIP of
the nib wall was not at that time established…there are NO RECORDS
of the decision on your compliant…are RECORDS of the complaint
numbers your complaints…these are 95/C/04896…I DO RECALL the
complaint about the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall…I informed you that
YOU had made complaint on this subject AT THAT TIME…writing to you.
There was no decision on the OWNERSHIP of THE WALL as that was NOT
RELEVANT, what WAS relevant was that this was A PRIVATE MATTER
between you and the Council OR the housing association…I note that
you complained that the council officers COMMITTED PERJURY…and that
you complained about this CRIMINAL OFFENCE to Merseyside Police.
You also challenged the competency of the Magistrates Court and
APPEALED TO THE CROWN COURT which was unable to help you…I am
sending a copy of this letter and the letter of February 19th to
the Council’s Chief Executive.”

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

ON MARCH 13TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES
CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING
TITLE MS 351603 UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 ON BEHALF OF PETER
COLLIS, HEAD REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER SENT TO THE LAND
REGISTRY ON MARCH 8TH 2007. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ON THE FIRST POINT I can confirn that the Land Registry was
supplied with the August 1994 version of Ordnance Survey map OS
SJ3396NW which CORRESPONDED with title MS351603 – 21 Lime Grove…on
the second point…if you want a response…please contact the
appropriate land registry office which deals with your area.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MS ANNE SEEEKS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO
REGARDING A LETTER DATED MARCH 16TH 2007:

“I have asked Mr Corney, an Assistant Ombudsman to review the file
on your complaint on my behalf. Mr Corney does not manage Mr Oxley
and has not previously been involved with your complaint. He will
complete the review and write to you as quickly as possible. His
decision will be final.”

ON MARCH 22ND I WROTE A COMPLAINT TO MS SEEKS REGARDING MR OXLEY
HEADED “MALICIOUS MIS-STATEMENT – BREACH OF DUTY”, POINTING OUT TO
HER THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE OMBUDSMAN IN 1995
REFERENCED 95/C/03824.”

ON MARCH 22ND 2007, MR CORNEY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/10048/RJC/jm. (CAPITALISATION
ADDED):

“ I have read the PAPERS and see nothing to suggest that the
decision was wrong, the only point I would accept is that complaint
95/c/03824 WAS NOT MADE IN 1995, as it was IN FACT received in this
office on 10 January 1996…Mr Oxley is also quite correct…about the
LIABILITY ORDER for NONE payment of Council Tax…there is no way in
which the Ombudsman can overturn the decision of a Magistrates
Court, which has been REINFORCED IN TURN BY THE CROWN COURT. ”

ON MARCH 26TH 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE
UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER
REFERENCE 154306:

“Thank you for your letter dated 16/3/07 addressed to Lord
Falconer…the issue raised is outside the remit of this department.
Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the DCLG.”

ON MARCH 27TH 2007, MR PATRICK BROUGH THE REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, WITH REGARD TO A LETTER AND DOCUMENTS
DATED MARCH 20TH 2007, UNDER THE REFERENCE CL145/03.
(CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I have nothing to add to the COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION which Mrs
Weaver gave you except to say…title MS351603 was FIRST registered
on 21 January 1994 and not on 25 September as YOU SUGGEST.”

ON MAY 4TH 2007, KELLY TOMLIN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT,
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

““Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2007 addressed to Lord
Falconer…if we decide your letter is best answered by another
office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been
transferred.”

On May 8TH 2007, ANNE SEEKS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WROTE
THE FOLLOWING TO ME, REGARDING A LETTER DATED APRIL 23RD 2007,
UNDER REFERENCE 06/10048/AS/CRB and changing the date for the 1995,
1996 complaint C/04896 to 1999:

“Both Mr Oxley and Mr Corney have explained why your complaint will
not be investigated. Their decisions are correct…I have to tell you
that the file relating to complaint 99/C/04896 was destroyed some
time ago and I cannot therefore comply with your request.”

ON MAY 14TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN FROM THE JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE
ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING EVIDENCE
I HAD SENT TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OVER THE “LAST MONTHS”
REFERENCED 0160/05/07. CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“The contents of those letters concerning damage to YOUR WALL have
been noted……if you wish to take the matter further you may like to
consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the
Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON MAY 18TH 2007 PAULA MULLIN OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED ”CLAIM NUMBERS 5LV53314 & 6L50690 UNDER REFERENCE
CSU21318 AND, REGARDING “LETTERS OF 14 APRIL, ADDRESSED TO LORD
FALCONER. LORD GOLDSMITH & LORD PHILLIPS WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED TO
HMCS BECAUSE:

“This office is responsible for dealing with all correspondence in
relation to the administration within the courts in England and
Wales.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, KAREN ROUSE, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER
OF MAY 31ST 2007:

“The matters raised in your letter are now the responsibility of
the Ministry of Justice. Your letter has therefore been transferred
to the new Ministry of Justice.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, SARAH MASTERSON, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
T16299/7 REGARDING “YOUR POLICE COMPLAINT.”:

“I can see from your letter that you have raised a complaint with
the Chief Constable and the…IPCC and are not satisfied with the
response you have received…the IPCC is an independent body and
therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you
will need to seek independent legal advice.”

ON JUNE 12TH 2007 I WROTE A ‘ROUND ROBIN’ LETTER REGARDING THE
FALLACIOIUS INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732 AKA RR98XN AKA AT01939, TO:

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON JUNE 26TH 2007, HIESH DARJEE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER
REFERENCED 070626/J24 – 54/018673/07”

“Thank you for your letter concerning council tax. As the issues
you have raised is the responsibility of this Department…I have
been asked to reply…I am afraid that the administration and
collection of council tax is the responsibility of the local
authority and it would not be appropriate for ministers or
officials from this Department to intervene in individual cases
between a local authority and its taxpayers.”

On June 27th 2007, BERNARD McNALLY FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM
OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER
REFERENCE INFO166270:

“Thank you for your “round robin letter” regarding Sefton Borough
council. The information you have provided will be kept on our
files for information only.”

ON JUNE 28TH 2007, H JARMAN FROM THE CASE RECEPTION UNIT OF THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE
INFO166461:

“Thank you for your correspondence received at this office on 14th
June 2007 regarding your information request to Sefton MBC. The
information you have provided will be kept on our files for
information only.”

ON JULY 9TH 2009 LANDSEARCH LIMITED EMAILED ME CONFIRMING THEIR
CONTRACT WITH ME TO SUPPLY ME WITH TITLES LA 45086, LA 45343 AND
TITLE MS351603.

JUST OVER A YEAR SINCE MY LETTER TO JOHN PRESCOTT REGARDING THE
FORGED MAPPING, MARY ROSE MULLINER,LAWYER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY,
TELFORD, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER
LA45086.”:

“The point made by you in your letter of 13 June 2007 as to the
erasure of the Crown copyright date. The 1977 title plan for
LA43086 is based on more than one edition of the Ordnance Survey.
The first sheet within which former LA45086 is to be found, is
based on a 1966 edition, and the second and third sheets, within
which second sheet your property is found, is based on a 1970
edition. Where more than one edition is being used it would be
inappropriate to refer a crown copyright date.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson