Cost to CCBC (so far) in bankrupting pier owner

Dear CCBC,

Please provide a detailed breakdown of ALL direct and indirect
costs incurred so far to date in your unsuccessful attempts to
claim assorted disputed Council Tax and Business Rates from me
which culminated in you deciding to bankrupt me. As a guide, this
must include, but is NOT limited to, the following:

Costs of obtaining Magistrates Court Liability Orders £ ?

Costs of numerous Bailiffs visits to my property £ ?

Costs of filing Statutory Demand £ ?

Costs of service of Statutory Demand £ ?

Costs of filing Bankruptcy Petition £ ?

Costs of Official Receiver deposit etc. £ ?

Costs of service of Bankruptcy Petition £ ?

Costs of R.P.G. (Insolvency Practitioner) to date including
disbursements etc. £ ?

Costs of D.W.F. (Solicitors) to date including disbursements etc. £
?

Costs of Counsel engaged by you/D.W.F. £ ?

Time and resource costs of all CCBC staff involved in dealing with
associated matters throughout this long-running dispute £ ?

Time and resource costs spent by the Information Regulations Unit,
and all other Council deparments that have been involved in (still
not fully) complying with my Data Protection Act and Freedom of
Information Act requests submitted in January 2007 - which I
understand from your recent correspondence with the ICO is costed
at £25 per hour. £ ?

The the time and resource costs thus far in the continuing
investigation of the Information Commissioner's Office due to your
non-compliance with the Data Protection Act and Freedom of
Information Act £ ?

The time and resource costs, court fees etc. in your unsuccessful
attempt to defend the enforcement case I brought against you in the
Conwy and Colwyn County Court (case 8CC00525) which you recently
lost. £ ?

N.B. the above is NOT intended to be an exhaustive list, it is
meant to help you identify the type of information you should be
providing in order to comply with this request. For the avoidance
of any doubt I require a detailed summary of ALL COSTS incurred to
date in the whole affair.

Steve Hunt

Dear CCBC,

VEXATIOUS?

How is it Vexatious for a local resident to ask how the Council
spends Taxpayer's money?

I think you mean it is going to be highly embarrassing to the
Council to reveal how much local people's Council Tax money you
have wasted chasing an alleged debt which is now proven to be
false.

I am requesting an Internal Review - not that you will take any
notice of that either I have no doubt.

A formal complaint is therefore also on its way to the ICO - to be
added to the one to which you are already under serious
investigation for.

Steve Hunt

Dear CCBC,

Whilst waiting for your so-called 'internal review', please give me
the names of the officers who decided my request was 'Vexatious'

Steve Hunt

Dear CCBC,

I do not want my 'request considering', I want the question
answered... it is a simple enough question, so answer it.

As the Judge said the last time I took you to court "if you have
nothing to hide, why are you hiding it?"

Steve Hunt

Dear CCBC,

Please provide an update of the status of:

a) my request submitted on 16th April

b) the internal review requested on 17th April

c) the clarification questions submitted on 27th and 28th April

Steve Hunt

Dear Sir or Madam,

I AM STILL WAITING, THIS REQUEST WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Conwy Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Cost to CCBC (so far) in bankrupting
pier owner'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours sincerely,

Steve Hunt

Dear Info Regs Unit,

Please be advised that YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY ABILITY TO ALTER THE
LAW, nor do you have any legal right to dictate to whom I or anyone
else can or cannot correspond.

REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PUBLIC SERVANT. Your sole
purpose is to serve myself and any other person who resides in
Conwy County.

(Oh, and please don't bother to be 'offended' or accuse me of being
'offensive' again - the above is a statement of absolute fact,
nothing more, nothing less)

Any further information requests I choose to make for any reason
(requesters do not have to give a reason) will likely be sent via
this website, which I understand are received by the Information
Regulation Unit.

Should the IRU decide to break the Law yet again by refusing to
deal with my requests for information, then once again a report
will be made to the ICO.

It is quite clear to see from status flags in the list of ALL
information requests made via this website (never mind those which
you receive by other means) that the Council is totally inept at
dealing with information requests.

One way or another the information I seek will be obtained, and
will be released to the public and national media, so everyone can
see for themselves just how much public money The Council have
wasted chasing up the fictitious, fraudulent debt you accused me of
owing, but which you knew was untrue from day one.

Steve Hunt

Dear Info Regs Unit,

I refer to your letter of 21/08/2009, (your ref DS/GF5919)

Your latest pathetic excuse at trying to keep this information from
myself and other taxpayers whose money you have wasted can
basically be summed up as follows:

1) You require confirmation and clarification of the above request

2) You require payment of £10

3 & 4) You do not believe that the person making the request via
this website (known as Steve Hunt) is the same Steve Hunt of
Victoria Pier, Colwyn Bay.

I will deal with each of these points below:

In response to your point 1: Specifically I require a detailed
summary of ALL COSTS. The words "ALL" and "COSTS" , which you
appear to have difficulty in understanding, have their natural
meaning in the English Language. ANY COST, howsoever incurred (and
whether or not it has actually been paid yet) must be included in
your response. If you are in any doubt as to whether or not a
particular item should be included in your response, I would advise
you to include it in any case, as if your response is in any way
deemed to be incomplete, I shall again commence legal proceedings
against CCBC forcing your compliance with the Law.

In response to your point 2: You can take the £10 fee from the
£97.05 CCBC has illegally contrived to defraud me of since January
2008 - refer to your Mr Kelvin Jones for details, since he is the
person who deliberately altered computer records and subsequently
made knowingly false financial statements to a Court of Law
regarding the amount of council tax / business rates I allegedly
owed CCBC.

In response to your points 3 & 4: If you do not believe that the
"Steve Hunt" making this (and other) requests on this website is
the same "Steve Hunt" as you have been corresponding with at
Victoria Pier, Colwyn Bay since December 2003, then perhaps you
could explain the following:

a) Why have you written to me at Victoria Pier regarding this
matter, and how do you explain that I am in receipt of the above
mentioned letter if the "Steve Hunt" writing this email is not the
same "Steve Hunt" you sent the letter to at Victoria Pier, Colwyn
Bay. To further verify I am in receipt of the letter written by
David J Smith, in addition to knowing the author, date and
reference number as given above, I offer the following observations
which you may verify against your records:
i) The first and last words of the first paragraph of the letter
are "The" and "individual" respectively.
ii) The first and last words of the last paragraph of the letter
are "Please" and "post"

b) Why have you suddenly decided that the two "Steve Hunts"
referred to above are different persons, when you have corresponded
to and fro on several other requests I have made via this website
by both email and paper means. Specifically, on several occasions I
have sent email requests via this website, you have responded via
paper letter, I have replied to your response by continuing the
email thread on this website, and you have again replied either by
paper letter or email.

c) Why have you made references in paper letters to requests made
via this website to Steve Hunt at Victoria Pier, if you do not
believe the person writing on this website/email is the same Steve
Hunt? - are you therefore admitting to being in breach of the Data
Protection Act by sending personal correspondence to an address you
do not believe is correct?.

I trust you will now comply with the Law?,

Steve Hunt

CCBC - if you do not acknowledge my request by close of business on
1st September 2009, I shall lodge a further formal complaint with
the Information Commissioner.

By refusing to deal with my FOI requests, you are willfully
breaking the law (as you have done many times already)

Steve Hunt

Mr Finch,

CCBC has my payment, and you have unquestionable verification that
I really am Steve Hunt. If you wish to challenge either of these
facts in Court at further expense to the local taxpayers after the
TWO recent cases you have lost, then that can easily be arranged.

Your David Smith has recently confirmed in writing that the Council
has no Policy to break the Law:
http://victoriapier.com/docs/110909.pdf therefore I hold you
personally responsible for your above letter.

Please now confirm if you will be complying with the Law without
further delay, or if you wish me to commence further litigation at
taxpayers expense. The choice is yours.

Steve Hunt

Dear David Smith,

To further verify my identity on this website, I quote back the
letter received by me today at the pier, signed and sent by you on
the 15th September 2009, postmarked 16th September 2009:

ref: Unit FOI 828-09

date: 15/09/2009

Dear Mr Hunt

Ref: Unit FOI 828-09

Further to my letter dated 21 August 2009 I write to inform you
that state of affairs dictated that the planned meeting of the
Qualified Persons Group for the 11th September 2009 had to be
postponed.

It has now been rescheduled for Thursday the 24th September 2009
and you will be advised of the outcome shortly after that date.

Your sincerely

(signed in black pen)

David Smith
Corporate Information & Complaints Manager

(end)

***********************************

Are you still not satisfied that I am the Steve Hunt that you sent
this letter to?

Dear Mr Smith,

Very well, I shall commence litigation against the Council within
the next few days.

All the correspondence between us via this website, and via the
Royal Mail will be cited in the Court Case, thereby proving you
have always accepted that I am me.

Should you choose to deny the fact you always acknowledged we are
one and the same person, you will by default thereby be admitting
to serious (criminal) breach of the Data Protection Act by making
available to the general public on this website private
correspondence between us. You cannot have it both ways.

I trust you have suitable authority to waste yet more local
taxpayers money on pointless litigation? I shall require a copy of
the Council Policy where this is clearly set out, plus a signed
letter from the Leader of the Council stating that your action is
being carried out in the best interest of the public.

Steve Hunt