Cost to Public for Fraudulent insurance Claim by Council

Dear Sir or Madam,

When A Council's Legal Department spends tens of thousands of
pounds of public money concealing a fraudulent insurance claim the
Council has made. Is this expense recorded as a debit in an audit
of its Legal Departments expenses.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Everything I say below is confirmed in writing and known to Sefton
Council.

The cost to the Councils activities are with regard to the issue by
them of fraudulent insurance claim(s), allegedly made by myself
against the Council and notified to their insurers and claims
managers as primarily a claim made by myself "when I lived in a mid
terrace location in 19 Lime Grove" which is refuted by the fact
that 19 Lime Grove was built in 1883 as an end of terrace dwelling
and I could not have ever lived in a "mid terrace location in Lime
Grove, to do so I would have had to have lived in 9,11,or 13 Lime
Grove. The claim(s) is/are referenced and dated as:

Claim W215732: August and September 1993 for demolition of none
existent buildings - and which the Council's CEO (who is a
barrister) confirmed to me on May 1st 2002 was unfounded.

Claim W215732: January 1st 1994: for an "incident" on January 1st
1994 - and which the Council's insurance claims managers also date
as a claim made on August 3rd and September 9th 1993.

Claim RR98XN aka W215732: for an "incident" on January 17th 1994 -
and which the Council's insurers say is their reference for claim
W215732 but, also say it is related to the demolition contract the
Council had with a demolition company to demolish maisonettes which
commenced on January 17th 1994 and who's contract completion date
was April 22nd 1994, and during which, between March 14th and April
6th 1994, my property was actually damaged.

Claim W215732 aka AT01939: February 20th 1996: for damage to
property between March 14th and April 21st 1994 - and which the
Council's claims managers and insurers say the Council were not
indemnified for and say to each other, is the legal liability of
Maritime Housing Association or their contractors, Fawley
Construction Ltd.

Claim RR98XN aka W215732: April 18th 2000: for damage to property
caused between March 14th and April 6th 1994 - and which the
Council's insurers confirm was not insured by them as it occurred
on the land that the Council had sold to Maritime Housing
Association on December 24th 1993 a contention which, the Council's
CEO (as a barrister) confirmed to me on May 1st 2002, stating from
December 24th 1994 the Council were not indemnified for the land
and referred me to Maritime Housing Association but,

this is contradicted by officers of the Council's insurance section
and the CEO's office who tell me that the Council "ceased to be
involved with the land after it was 'handed over to Maritime
Housing Association on April 1st 1994 which,

is contradicted by Maritime Housing Association saying to me that
they took 'possession' of the land on March 14th 1994 which,

is contradicted by themselves saying, to the knowledge of Sefton
Council that they had the land 'transferred to them in 'mid 1995'.

The Council say they have spent "hundreds of hours" in support of
this (these) claim(s) for which they know they had no insurance
indemnity and have notified to Maritime Housing Association and
their insurers and claims managers under their reference W215732
dated 1993 as a claim made by myself.

This matter has been reported to the Police and the courts, two
Prime Ministers and, Ministers, the Home Secretary and Law Lords
including two Lord Chancellors, my MP and several of Sefton
Council's Councillors, including the current Council Leader (Lib
Dem):

It has also been through the complain systems of the Local
Government Ombudsman and Legal Services Ombudsman as well as the
AIB and GISC, and the Law Society: None of who upheld my complaints
and some who upheld the fraudulent claims I had allegedly made,
either by supporting Sefton Council's Legal Directors contention I
had "abundantly clearly" done so, or stating I had the right to
make such claims, or by omission to properly consider the evidence
or facts I presented to them.

The Police said it was a civil matter and refused to investigate it
properly and chose instead to rely on the deceit of the Council
that these claims have been made by myself, most notably based on
correspondence and conversation with the Council's Technical
Services Director who,

the Council's Insurance s Section confirm, is not an "insurance
expert" and therefore did not know what he was telling me was
untrue: he is in fact a structural engineer who knew about claim
W215732, and

at the time he was misleading me, chose not to tell me about it,
but asked me to make a 'COMPLAINT against the Council, Maritime
Housing Association and Fawley Construction, when I did in a letter
dated April 18th 2000, stating i held Sefton Maritime OR Fawley
responsible for the DEMOLITION of the maisonettes and damage
arising from that demolition. The Technical Services Director then,
initiated, with the Council's Senior Claims Manager and within the
knowledge of the Council's Senior Solicitor,

a claim based on the contention I was making a CLAIM against Sefton
AND Maritime Housing Association AND Fawley Construction on April
18th 2000 for damage caused between March 14th 1994 (when the
maisonettes were photographed by Sefton) and sometime after the
demolition contractors had left the site after April 22nd 1994, the
maisonettes were also seen in situ by Sefton and Maritime Housing
Association on March 31st 1994.

The Council's insurers first wrote to me on September 7th 2000
notifying me of claim RR98XN (aka W215732) dated January 17th 1994.

In support of this claim, the Councils Legal Director wrote to the
Local Government Ombudsman on March 15th 2001 regarding an
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR CLAIM made by myself against Sefton, TOGETHER WITH
Maritime Housing Association AND Fawley Construction.

Subsequently I complained to the Law Society regarding the
alteration of the word OR to AND and then to TOGETHER WITH by the
Council's Legal Director: The Law Society wrote to me dismissing my
complaint and stating the words OR and AND had the same meaning,

a contention that was subsequently supported by the Legal Services
Ombudsman. neither she nor The Law Society will withdraw that
contention.

The Liverpool County court struck my Part 8 civil claim against
Sefton, a claim of no value for breach of the DPA, without reason
in my absence, and Sefton were awarded costs against me which, they
refuse to quantify despite the order of the court, and requests by
myself for them to do so.

I also sued Fawley Construction on the basis that Sefton's insurers
told me they were RESPONSIBLE for the demolition of the maisonettes
between March 14th and April 6th 1994, and after a hearing in the
Liverpool TCC the claim was struck out by the TCC judge, a
subsequent hearing of a "fixture" for this claim was heard in the
Liverpool Crown Court, I am still awaiting the decision of a high
court judge.

I also sued and won in a claim against Maritime Housing Association
who had not ever admitted liability for the damage that Sefton had
been processing with their insurers and claims managers under the
references W215732, AT01939 and RR98XN between August 1993 and up
to September 2003 without ever disclosing to me the basis of claim
W215732 dated 1993.

A claim I discovered the fact of by way of a data subject request
under the DPA in 2003, despite this,

Sefton have never admitted or denied to me that claim W215732 was
for the demolition of none existent buildings, a contention that is
contained in a Sefton letter to Maritime Housing Association dated
February 1999 (who confirm this to me in a letter dated October
22nd 1999) and, in a memo to Sefton's Technical Services Director
dated November 12th 1999.

The 'hundreds of hours then ensued' twisting events around that
involved hundreds of letters, memo's and faxes between myself and
Sefton and Sefton and their insurers and the third parties involved
in the development next to my property.

All of which arose as a direct consequence of the contention by the
Council to its claims managers, insurer's and Maritime Housing
Association, that I had made a claim against the Council in 1993 (a
claim that would have effected the title of the land which was
bought with a forged map),

land that was subsequently registered with a forged map in August
1994.

The subsequent concealment and criminal activity that arose from
the obvious deceit of the above claims is what needs to be
investigated.

If you wish to regard the above as a 'complaint'' please
investigate and clarify the facts of the matter which Sefton refuse
to disclose to me or any other authority but say I am vexatious for
pursuing the answer to.

It is a basic tenet of the law that "he who avers, must prove". I
aver and can prove to the satisfaction of any reasonable person
(say in a jury) that I did not, nor could have ever lived in a "mid
terrace location in Lime Grove" or made a claim against the Council
for the demolition of "none existent buildings".

Sefton cannot, prove to the satisfaction of any reasonable person
(say in a jury) otherwise,

One thing is in fact abundantly clear is that the amount of money
expended on this concealment of the 1993 claim by Sefton and by all
the parties who have been involved in it and the "hundred of hours"
work and documentation by the Council it generated, and factoring
in the cost of the legitimate work of the Councils officers and
others, including civil servants, judges and court officers, and
various other publicly funded bodies -

should have been doing,

has cost more than it would have cost to build me a substantially
better house than I have ever had the good fortune to own.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

I trust you are saying that you have no locus in this matter ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

I do not understand your answer and reference to a 'complaint'
please clarify in simple terms the answer to my FOI request as I am
not making a complaint but seeking information.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Are you saying the Commission has nothing to do with auditing the
accounts of Councils

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

May I draw your attention to the Audit Commission Act 1998

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Are you saying the Audit CommissionAct does not apply to Sefton
Council

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Are you saying that the audit commission cannot instigate an
investigation into a councils finances via its appointer auditor
unless a member of the public raises the matter with the appointed
district auditor.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Are you confirming that the Audit Commission: is refusing to
investigate the waste of possibly tens of thousands of pounds of
public money because you will not appoint auditors to investigate ?
or,

refusing to appoint auditors ? or,

are you confirming the auditors have refused to investigate ? or,

are you confirming the auditors would refuse to investigate if they
were asked to ?

Your answer seems to be confirming 'we at the Audit Commission only
give orders' for an audit and have no power over the auditors to
order an investigation because it is 'up to the auditors' to
investigate what they choose to investigate under their own
discretion and is something only they have control of. Is this the
case ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT SEFTON KNEW IN FEBRUARY 2003:

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR JANUARY 24TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL 1ST FEBRUARY 2003

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS FEBRUARY 8TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTON FEBRUARY 14TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 20TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 22ND 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 26TH 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 5TH 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 6TH 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Ms Elwood Seftons legal Director March 6th 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

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

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

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

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

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

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

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

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

Thanks

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE INFORMATION ON
THEIR SPENDING BY COUNCIL'S AND DOES NOT HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ANY
DISCREPANCIES THAT ARE REPORTED TO IT REGARDING THAT INFORMATION ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

For your information

FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS AND THE OMBUDSMAN 2001

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

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

THE OMBUDSMAN:

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

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

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

FROM:

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

INTO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c.c. Sharan Bhogal DETR London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMBC cannot alter the law on statute barring.

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

You state I have not suffered loss, I disagree.

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

Why was this done and on what authority.

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

cc Joe Benton MP

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 7TH 2001

Thank you for your letter of 30th May 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

This conviction is the result of obtaining several legal opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 26TH 2001:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JULY 7TH 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON AUGUST 16TH 2001 GTB WROTE TO ME STATING:

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

your sincerely

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Claim W215732 January 1st 1994

In 1893: 19 Lime Grove was built on the North side of Lime Grove,
as the end terrace house of nine standing next to a large detached
house numbered 21 Lime Grove.

19 Lime Grove was a three bedroom end of terrace house with an
outside toilet. This toilet was situated some 4 metres from the
rear of its kitchen and attached to the Rear Boundary Wall of 19
Lime Grove. This rear boundary wall ran east to west along an
alleyway between Lime Grove and Hawarden Grove.

Looking at 19 Lime Grove from the front, its gable wall ran North
to South and formed its boundary wall with 21 Lime Grove - the
large detached House.

In the 1960's: Numerous streets to the east of 19 Lime Grove,
including 21 Lime Grove were demolished, the land cleared, and
maisonettes and high rise flats built on it. In lieu of 21 Lime
Grove, maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove was built some 5 metres
from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove. To achieve this, as Lime
grove runs downhill, the level of the land along 19 Lime Groves
gable wall was reduced to level the site and build the adjacent
maisonette block.

The support this land had previously given to 19 Lime Groves gable
wall appears to have been considered important enough to replaced
it with two Party Boundary Structures in the form of what are known
as 'the screen wall' and 'old footings' these were constructed
abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove, presumably by Sefton’s
contractor Messrs Mathews and Mumby Ltd.

The 'old footings' (a misnomer as they 'footed' nothing) extend the
length of the gable wall between The 'screen wall' that extended
between and abutted (around the centre) the gables of 19 Lime Grove
and (to the front of) the maisonettes 21 to 39.

Prior to 1972: The outside toilet in 19 Lime Groves yard was
demolished and the soil pipe to the underground drains, within the
yard of 19 Lime Grove that had served the outside toilet was sealed
off and buried some 250mm below ground level.

In 1983 I applied for a grant from Sefton and a surveyor from 'The
Vis Johnson Partnership' inspected.

Regarding the gable wall this surveyor noted it had a bulge in it
and was not sure if it required rebuilding or not. He recommended
the gable wall be investigated by a structural engineer and
recommended Mr Kevin Smith, a structural engineer, to me.

I engaged Mr Smith and Mr Smith surveyed the gable wall on June 5th
1983, his report states:

“The Property…the end house of a terrace block…there are cracks
visible to the gable and the movement appears to be horizontal
only… there are cracks visible at the junction of the ceilings and
the gable at both ground and first floor levels…the problem would
appear to be a lack of horizontal restraint to the tall and slender
gable wall. The original construction made no provision to tie the
gable wall to the structure at floor and roof levels…the gable wall
itself appears sound…there are no signs of cracked bricks…it is not
possible to determine whether any movement is still taking place…it
is unlikely that any movement will continue once the strapping work
has been done…there is no indication of vertical movement as a
result of inadequate foundations.”

There is a gully that drains surface water into the sewers leading
from the alleyway that runs along the length of the rear boundary
walls of Lime Grove with grids situated in it. A grid leading to
these drains is located some 500mm from the rear gateway to 19 Lime
Grove abutting my boundary wall.

As the land is unadopted this gully and drains are not maintained
and this had caused subsidence in the alleyway which, in turn had
caused the boundary walls of 15, 17 and 19 Lime Grove to lean into
the rear alleyway.

Around March 1985 Sefton, in the form of Mr McDonnagh notified me
Sefton had ordered the demolition of the rear boundary walls of 15,
17 and 19 Lime Grove - due to their 'condition'.

This notification, on a small green card was posted through my
front door [Wednesday] when I was out.

Two days after Mr McDonnaghs notification to me of Seftons
intentions [Friday]. Sefton performed the demolition of the
boundary wall by pushing it over into the yard of 19 Lime Grove.
This demolition was done when I was not at home and resulted in the
locked gate of the rear boundary wall into the alleyway being torn
from its hinges and the lid of my refuse bin being destroyed.

With regard to the damage caused to the rear gate and bin lid, I
made an insurance claim against Sefton and was paid some £37.00 by
their then Manchester based insurers M & M.

This creates an insurance claim record of a claim by myself
concerning, but not for, the demolition of a boundary wall due to
its condition.

It also acknowledges the liability of Sefton for damage caused by
the demolition of the rear boundary wall. I subsequently had the
rear boundary wall rebuilt at no cost to Sefton.

The demolition of this boundary wall had ruptured the underground
drains under the yard of 19 Lime Grove by impacting on the shallow
soil pipe from the demolished outside toilet and caused damage that
remained latent until 1987 when the drains began to 'back up' and
eventually partially collapse, this caused subsidence to the rear
yard, principally at the boundary wall. In 1987 I had the drains
repaired at no cost to Sefton. The boundary wall was unaffected.

In 1984/5 Sefton revamped the maisonettes and proposed to demolish
the party boundary structure the 'screen wall'.

After I had enquired to Sefton on site about their evident
intention to demolish the screen wall Sefton 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.

In Early 1991 A claim against Sefton was contemplated by myself and
I engaged solicitors, David Phillips and Partners who obtained
legal aid for me and, with regard to:

A letter of instruction:

Preliminary advice from counsel:

A statement from myself:

Instructed and had my property surveyed by Mr Alan Jones, a
chartered surveyor. Mr Jones noted in his report:

“Mr Robinson explained that at some time after the Improvement
grant work there was a difficulty at the back of his home in that
part of the boundary wall was demolished. Thereafter, difficulties
were found with the drainage system and drains were re-laid. The
rear yard boundary wall was reconstructed. I regard those incidents
as quite important in the catalogue that has effected 19 Lime
Grove…other incidents have occurred during the history of this
house…when it was first constructed it butted up to but, clearly
did not form part of a bigger and more substantial house which was
immediately to the right or along the east side of Lime Grove. That
house has long since been demolished and in lieu there is now a
development of flats and maisonettes owned by Sefton MBC. The gable
wall of 19 Lime Grove faces toward those properties. In part there
is a screen wall running between the gable of No 19 and the corner
of the maisonettes. Evidently, Sefton, in a renovation process for
their properties, intended to demolish that screen wall. However at
Mr Robinson’s request a nib was left, for it was giving some
support and stability to the gable wall. I have to say a sensible
proposition. One can see at low level toward the rear, that is
beyond the screen wall, where there is a concrete upstand and
concrete apron against the gable wall…those concrete sections
evidently shield and shelter stepped footings to the rear section
(beyond the cellar area. The exposure might well have come about at
the time the maisonettes were constructed by the winning of the
land and change in levels, that would of course be before the
purchase by Mr Robinson and his interest in No 19…between the front
right hand corner of the house and the footwalk there is a boundary
wall. That is in 225mm brickwork rising to a height of about 2
metres and capped by heavy concrete coping. It seems the wall
probably replaces and had been extended from an earlier wall. There
is block bonding between the red brick quoin of the original front
elevation of the house and the common brick gable wall. One can see
where this boundary has dragged away from the main structure. In
effect, it has rotated on its axis at the point of intersection
with the quoin to the front right hand corner. In so doing, it has
dragged away and opened up at joints there…Mr Robinson has
discovered that fractures are beginning to appear, (hairline
fractures), in particular to the outrigger portion of the
property…notwithstanding the bow which one can clearly see to the
gable wall and notwithstanding the presence there of various plates
and ties that pass through, one cannot see anything sinister
occurring at this moment to the main portion of the gable…however,
there is an old tie which shows in the end of the terrace to the
right of the masonry and thee is a pronounced bow of the brickwork
at the front quoin. How old is that bow? I would suggest it has
been there many years…it would have been ideal in 1983 or 1984 to
suggest that the gable wall be reconstructed in a truly vertical
plane and upon new foundations. It is not necessarily the case of
course that underpinning of that gable wall for the outrigger would
have been considered necessary at the time. That could be the case
whether or not the bulge in the gable wall was as great as it is at
this moment. A bulge does not necessarily denote defective
foundations. Moreover a situation obtains where there must be
different levels of foundation. The cellar section has walls which
go down some 1500mm below the remainder and it is highly unlikely
that because of the change of levels, there would have been deep
foundations to the back section of the gable or indeed the
outrigger. (for it is borne out by the presence of the concrete
apron to part of the rear section of the gable / flank wall

On May 14th 1992: Mr Jones rang my solicitors’ Mr Skinner,
regarding his report of November 8th 1991 and a conversation they
had had previously. Mr Jones stated to him:

“Mr Robinson forwarded to me direct a copy of Kevin Smith
Associates report…dated 5th June 1983. I also received (directly
from Mr Robinson), an account for repairing a broken drain which
account is dated 23rd February 1987 and is in the sum of £290.
Thereafter you kindly took up with Sefton MBC whether or not the
authority could make its file available. Sefton has now replied to
indicate the file was destroyed some time ago…the situation remains
whereby movement seems to be continuing to the house. The only
source of finance that seems likely to be available to put right
any difficulties would be that of Mr Robinson’s own pocket, for I
cannot see on the basis of the present evidence contributions might
be received from any other source.”

Around January 9th 1993: David Phillips and Partners, my
solicitors, obtained a second counsels advice from Mr Graham Woods
whose advice states:

“I was first instructed in this matter in the early part of 1991,
proceedings were contemplated against Metropolitan Borough of
Sefton, who had supervised grant – aided repair work to Mr
Robinson’s terrace dwellinghouse…I indicated in my preliminary
advice that it was impossible to give any opinion as to the merits
of the proposed claim in negligence, assuming an duty of care could
be established without the benefit of a detailed history and an
engineers report. Mr Jones has subsequently provided that
report…and a further short report in May of this year. I am
required to consider the merits of the proposed claim for the
purpose of the Legal Aid Authority…when Mr Jones first reported he
did not have the benefit of Kevin Smiths report Mr Smiths liability
was limited to the provision of restraint to all walls…undoubtedly
Mr Robinsons property is suffering from subsidence. It is
ongoing…ultimately, remedial works by means of underpinning will be
required. The issue of any negligence action is a simple one. Was
such subsidence evident to a significant degree in 1983/1984…it
would seem that Mr Jones has considered this aspect
comprehensively, and is unable to advise that the present condition
did not obtain when works were undertaken in 1983/1984 and that
they could not have been speculate by Sefton.”

On January 15th 1993: My legal aid was discharged on the basis of
the above advice.

On June 10th 1993: Sefton informed me of a proposed development on
the land adjacent to my property known as 'The Kepler Street site'.
I went to Seftons Planning Department and viewed the ‘layout
drawings’ for the proposed development

This work was seemingly to include the demolition of the Party
Boundary Structures. No other party connected with the development
was mentioned in the letter of June 10th 1993 and I took it that no
other party was involved and that it was a Sefton Council project.

On August 3rd 1993: I wrote to Sefton stating:

"Re my recent visit to your planning Department about the existing
nib wall and old footings at the side gable of my property, can you
inform me of any action the Council would take about the above,
should the development go ahead."

On August 10th 1993: Sefton’s Mr Louhran responded stating:

“From your letter it is not possible to ascertain the reason behind
your enquiry. Please contact my assistant Mrs P Carruthers in my
development and control section who will be able to assist you
further.”

On September 8th 1993 I wrote to Sefton, clearly under the
impression it was they who were to develop the land, stating:

"I refer to your letter dated 10 August 1993. Your plans show no
nib wall or old footings adjacent to my gable wall, do you intend
to remove these when you develop the site or do you intend to alter
your plans to show their presence."

On September 16th 1993: The above letter was sent to: the Director
of Property Services, Pavilion Buildings, Southport, marked for the
attention of Sefton’s Mr Barr who was the Principle Architect on
the project at Kepler Street.

On October 1st 1993: Sefton’s Mr Barr wrote to me stating:

“I appreciate your concern about your gable wall, ‘nib’ wall and
associated footings. May I reassure you that when the site is
redeveloped adjacent to your property, there should be no
interference with these features. The layout drawing which was
provided for consultation purposes is of such a small scale that
the details to which you refer would not be shown.”

On March 22nd 2006: In claim 5LV55490, Robinson v Aon Corporate Mr
Craig Sayer, a lawyer employed by Sefton’s Claims Managers, the Aon
Corporation, in claim 5LV55490, Robinson v Aon sent, to the
Liverpool County Court, and copied to me a letter in response to my
application for details of the basis of claim(s) W215732 dated 1993
from Aon for “the demolition of none existent buildings in the
1960’s” and, for an “incident” dated January 1st 1994. Mr Sayer
verified and stated the following:

“The incident date of 1 January 1994, which is a referred to is
used for Aon’s and the insured’s (Sefton’s) purposes to ascertain
which policy year any claim attaches to or may attach to at a later
date. There is no specific incident that took place on the 1st
January 1994 and this may account for the claimant’s confusion.
Similarly, the date of 1st January 1994 does not refer to a
specific claim as it is an internal date used by Aon and Sefton.

Correspondence was received prior to 1st January 1994 from the
claimant, i.e. his letters of 3 August and undated letter received
by Sefton on 9 September 1993…it is not clear why the date of 1
January 1994 should be amended in the light of the information set
out above or why the Claimant wishes to have the date amended.”

NB This document is an amendment of a document entitled “Report of
Crime by Sefton MBC” dated July 17th 2006 that was hand delivered
to Merseyside Police, Filed at Liverpool county court, and
delivered by hand to Sefton Council at Balliol House Bootle, who,
stamped each page of it as received on July 17th 2006.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

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 Shaun Kavanagh

I am writing to request an internal review of Audit Commission's
handling of my FOI request 'Cost to Public for Fraudulent insurance
Claim by Council'.

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,

fred robinson

Dear SHAUN KAVANAGH

FOR INFORMATION:

COVERT MEANS SECRET OR HIDDEN.

OVERT MEANS OPEN.

RECIPIENT MEANS SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES SOMETHING.

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2002:

May 7 – 14 – 22

July 15

August 6 - 22

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

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

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2004:

March 3

April 8 – 14

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

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

June 4

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

FOR INFORMATION:

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S FINANCE DIRECTOR, MR YATES SENT
THE FOLLOWING MEMO (AD/EM/robinson/BC/14.2) TO THE COUNCIL’S
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR WILLIAMS:

“Thank you for the copies of the recent correspondence regarding
the above. As advised Mr Robinson has now raised this matter with
the Association of British Insurers. The A.I.B. have requested that
Royal SunAlliance responded further to Mr Robinson. I will forward
copies of that correspondence to you when I receive it myself. I
write to confirm the verbal request from R.S.A. that any
correspondence the Authority receives be passed to them unanswered.
Further please do not write to Mr Robinson as I requested in my
memorandum of 8th November 2000. When you have completed your
internal enquiries regarding the date of handover please advise
myself so I can pass the information to R.S.A.”

ON MARCH 2ND 2001 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED RR98XN - A REFERENCE USED BY SEFTON AND ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE FOR A CLAIM BY MYSELF AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR AN
UNDISCLOSED “INCIDENT” DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994 WHEN THE NIB WALL
WAS IN SITU - AND PRESUMABLY COPIED IT TO THE COUNCIL:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that Sefton MBC had any
involvement in the removal of the nib wall…and we cannot see that a
legal liability rests with them in respect of any damage which may
have occurred to your property. You do not state precisely when the
damage occurred to your property, however, it may be that any claim
you wish to make is statute barred…in view of the foregoing, it
would be inappropriate for us to continue the correspondence or
make any further comment on the issue related to liability.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION:

The National Audit Office audits the accounts of all central
government departments and agencies, as well as a wide range of
other public bodies, and reports to Parliament on the economy,
efficiency and effectiveness with which they have used public
money. Our work saves the taxpayer millions of pounds every year.

SEFTON COUNCIL ADMIT TO SPENDING "HUNDREDS OF MAN HOURS" ATTEMPTING
TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS, DESPITE
KNOWING AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES DURING THE EXPENDITURE OF THIS TIME
AND ENSUING LEGAL ACTION BY MYSELF.

THEY WERE NOT INDEMNIFIED BY THEIR INSURERS, ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE
FOR CLAIMS BY MYSELF AGAINST THEM.

FOR THE MOST PART THE "HUNDREDS OF MAN HOURS" WERE SPENT BY HIGHLY
PAID DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL.

FOR INFORMATION:

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S FINANCE DIRECTOR, MR YATES SENT
THE FOLLOWING MEMO (AD/EM/robinson/BC/14.2) TO THE COUNCIL’S
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR WILLIAMS:

“Thank you for the copies of the recent correspondence regarding
the above. As advised Mr Robinson has now raised this matter with
the Association of British Insurers. The A.I.B. have requested that
Royal SunAlliance responded further to Mr Robinson. I will forward
copies of that correspondence to you when I receive it myself. I
write to confirm the verbal request from R.S.A. that any
correspondence the Authority receives be passed to them unanswered.
Further please do not write to Mr Robinson as I requested in my
memorandum of 8th November 2000. When you have completed your
internal enquiries regarding the date of handover please advise
myself so I can pass the information to R.S.A.”

ON MARCH 2ND 2001 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED RR98XN - A REFERENCE USED BY SEFTON AND ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE FOR A CLAIM BY MYSELF AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR AN
UNDISCLOSED “INCIDENT” DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994 WHEN THE NIB WALL
WAS IN SITU - AND PRESUMABLY COPIED IT TO THE COUNCIL:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that Sefton MBC had any
involvement in the removal of the nib wall…and we cannot see that a
legal liability rests with them in respect of any damage which may
have occurred to your property. You do not state precisely when the
damage occurred to your property, however, it may be that any claim
you wish to make is statute barred…in view of the foregoing, it
would be inappropriate for us to continue the correspondence or
make any further comment on the issue related to liability.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION:

The Audit Commission is an independent watchdog, driving economy,
efficiency and effectiveness in local public services to deliver
better outcomes for everyone. Our work across local government,
health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue services
means that we have a unique perspective. We promote value for money
for taxpayers, auditing the £200 billion spent by 11,000 local
public bodies.

SEFTON COUNCIL ADMIT TO SPENDING "HUNDREDS OF HOURS" ATTEMPTING TO
ANSWER MY ALLEGATIONS THAT I HAD NOT MADE INSURANCE CLAIMS AGAINST
THEM WHILE AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES KNOWING THAT THEY WERE NOT
INDEMNIFIED FOR ME TO CLAIM AGAINST THEM.

THE COUNCIL COULD NOT FAIL TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY HAD SOLD THE
LAND TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION ON DECEMBER 24TH 1993 WHICH
WAS PRIOR TO THE CLAIMS I HAD ALLEGEDLY MADE AND, KNEW THAT IT WAS
NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE ON THE LAND FROM THEN.

MOST OF MY CORRESPONDENCE WAS WITH THE HIGHLY PAID COUNCILS
DIRECTORS AND IT IS THEY, IN THE MAIN, WHO DEVOTED THESE HOURS TO
CONCEALING THE FACTS FROM ME AND FROM OTHER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING
THE COURT.

AT ONE POINT THE COUNCIL INDICATED THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY ME
£1000 FOR THE MATTER TO "GO AWAY" - IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO WAS TO PAY
ME THIS MONEY, OR WHY. THE CONTENTION APPEARS TO BE THAT THIS £1000
WAS TO BE A "STATUS QUO" PAYMENT FOR 10% OF DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY
WHICH HAD OCCURRED AFTER THE SALE OF THE LAND TO MARITIME HOUSING
ASSOCIATION BY THE DEMOLITION OF THE 'NIB WALL' REFERRED TO BY
ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE ON MARCH 2ND 2001 AND, HAD BEEN QUANTIFIED ON
MAY 19TH 2000 IN A JOINT SURVEY PAID FOR BY SEFTON COUNCIL. IT WAS
WITH REGARD TO THIS SURVEY THAT ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE TO ME ON
SEPTEMBER 7TH 2000 ALERTING ME TO CLAIM RR98XN DATED JANUARY 17TH
1994, SOME NINE MONTHS AFTER STATUTE BARRING WOULD HAVE COME INTO
FORCE , HAD IT HAVE BEEN MADE.

WHEN I TOOK LEGAL ACTION THE COUNCIL'S LEGAL RESOURCES WERE CALLED
UPON IN A HOPELESS CAUSE RESULTING IN FURTHER NEEDLESS EXPENDITURE
OF PUBLIC MONEY.

IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE COUNCILS INSURERS, ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE,
REALISED THE HOPELESSNESS OF SEFTONS POSITION ON EVIDENCE PROVIDED
TO THEM BY MYSELF, THEY THEN ADMITTED TO ME THAT THE COUNCIL WERE
NOT INDEMNIFIED FOR ONE OF THE FRAUDULENT "POSSIBLE" OR "POTENTIAL"
CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNCIL REFERENCED RR98XN.

IT TOOK ANOTHER YEAR FOR THE COUNCILS CEO, MR HEYWOOD, TO ADMIT
THAT ANOTHER OF THESE "INSURANCE CLAIMS" DATED 1993 AND ALSO
REFERENCED RR98XN BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE, WAS UNFOUNDED.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING CLAIM RR98XN aka W215732:

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S FINANCE DIRECTOR, MR YATES SENT
THE FOLLOWING MEMO (AD/EM/robinson/BC/14.2) TO THE COUNCIL’S
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR WILLIAMS:

“Thank you for the copies of the recent correspondence regarding
the above. As advised Mr Robinson has now raised this matter with
the Association of British Insurers. The A.I.B. have requested that
Royal SunAlliance responded further to Mr Robinson. I will forward
copies of that correspondence to you when I receive it myself. I
write to confirm the verbal request from R.S.A. that any
correspondence the Authority receives be passed to them unanswered.
Further please do not write to Mr Robinson as I requested in my
memorandum of 8th November 2000. When you have completed your
internal enquiries regarding the date of handover please advise
myself so I can pass the information to R.S.A.”

ON MARCH 2ND 2001 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED RR98XN - A REFERENCE USED BY SEFTON AND ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE FOR A CLAIM BY MYSELF AGAINST THE COUNCIL FOR AN
UNDISCLOSED “INCIDENT” DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994 WHEN THE NIB WALL
WAS IN SITU - AND PRESUMABLY COPIED IT TO THE COUNCIL:

“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that Sefton MBC had any
involvement in the removal of the nib wall…and we cannot see that a
legal liability rests with them in respect of any damage which may
have occurred to your property. You do not state precisely when the
damage occurred to your property, however, it may be that any claim
you wish to make is statute barred…in view of the foregoing, it
would be inappropriate for us to continue the correspondence or
make any further comment on the issue related to liability.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear SHAUN KAVANAH

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING:

ON MAY 18TH 2004 IN CLAIM LV306271, ROBINSON V SEFTON COUNCIL,
JUDGE FITZGERALD ORDERED:

“Prior to the next directions hearing the parties shall explore
alternative resolution in this matter.”

THE COURTS, AND MY OWN, PREFERRED METHOD OF A D R IS REFERRRED TO
IN THER CPR AS “EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION” WHICH ENTAILS AN
INDEPENDENT PERSON, USUALLY A BARRISTER OR SIMILAR, LOOKING AT THE
CLAIMS MADE BY EACH SIDE AND IDENTIFYING WHERE THE REAL PROBLEMS
LIE:

GIVEN THAT AT THAT TIME THE COUNCIL HAD NOT SENT ME A COPY OF THEIR
‘FIRST DEFENCE’ DATED FEBRUARY 23RD 2004, THERE WAS NO COMMON
GROUND FOR A D R TO BE CONDUCTED UPON.

ON JULY 12TH 2004 WITH REGARD TO THREE QUESTIONNAIRES I HAD SENT TO
MY MP, THE LEADER OF SEFTON COUNCIL AND MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON’S
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR REGARDING THEIR POSITION ON JUDGE
FITZGERALDS ORDER FOR A R D: MS ELWOOD, THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR RECEIPT AND STATING:

“I must advise you that alternative dispute resolution does not
involve written questions with limited answers…but is intended that
both parties should sit around the table with a view to trying to
resolve their differences…the Council are prepared to meet with
you…ideally before the hearing in August to see if the matter can
be resolved and thereby save Court time and costs…I will in any
event Comply with the court order and lodge a response to the
further information you have filed in court.”

ON JUNE 21ST 2004 MR BENTON MP. IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONNAIRE
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I cannot recall any Council officer referring to a claim against
the Council. I can only assume you may have referred to it when you
first came to see me but it is so long ago now I am unable to be
definitive.”

ON JUNE 28TH 2004 AN ALLOCATION HEARING IN CLAIM 4LV11339, ROBINSON
V ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE, WAS HELD (IN WHICH NO ALLOCATION TO A TRACK
WAS MADE AND A D R WAS OFFERED TO THE DEFENDANT SOLICITOR, WHO
DISCUSSED IT WITH ME IN THE COURT WAITING ROOM), ON JULY 1ST 2004
JUDGE FITZGERALDS ORDER DATED JUNE 28TH 2004, WAS SENT TO ME
STATING:

“Upon the court being informed that the Defendant will issue an
application by 4pm on 26 July 2004 for the claim to be struck
out…the matter shall be adjourned to Tuesday 14 September 2004 at
10.am...when the court will give further directions and hear any
application for strike out.”

ON JULY 12TH 2004 AN ORDER, DATED JUNE 28TH 2004 BY JUDGE
FITZGERALD WAS SENT TO ME IN CLAIM LV306271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC,
STATING:

“On the court hearing from the parties in the related matter of
4LV11339 the court of its own initiative directs that the hearing
due to take place on 24th August 2004 be vacated and heard instead
on (the next available date for 30 minutes before District Judge
Fitzgerald after the appointment to be given on 4LV11339) – the
date to be advised by the court.

ON JULY 21ST 2004, I FILED AT COURT AND SERVED ON THE COUNCIL PAGE
8 FROM THE LEGAL COMMISSIONS LEAFLET “ALTERNATIVES TO COURT:
DEALING WITH PROBLEMS WITHOUT GOING TO COURT” WHICH, AT PARAGRAPH 3
DESCRIBES ‘EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION’ IN DETAIL.

ON JULY 21ST 2004, SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR, MS ELWOOD, OVER A MONTH
BEFORE THE TIME FOR A D R ELAPSED, SENT ME A DOCUMENT (THE SECOND
DEFENCE) ENTITLED ”DEFENCE TO CLAIM AND REPLY TO FURTHER AND BETTER
PARTICULARS.” THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER STATED THE FOLLOWING
- (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I note you have not responded to my previous correspondence to
meet with a view to alternative dispute resolution…the council
believes your claim is VEXATIOUS AND FRIVOLOUS and that the Council
does NOT HOLD A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM for the purpose of collating
data in respect of yourself. MANY HOURS OF COUNCIL TIME has now
been spent trying to deal with your correspondence and as the
Council has a DUTY TO OTHER COUNCIL TAX PAYERS it is not prepared
to WASTE ANY FURTHER TIME OR EXPENSE in responding to further
correspondence.”

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Shaun Kavanagh,

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Gary Shipsey,

WILL YOU INFORM ME WHAT PART OF:

"When A Council's Legal Department spends tens of thousands of
pounds of public money concealing a fraudulent insurance claim the
Council has made. Is this expense recorded as a debit in an audit
of its Legal Departments expenses."

REQUIRES AN EXPLAINATION ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Gary Shipsey,

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT KNOW THAT A COUNCIL
MUST DECLARE ITS EXPENDITURE TO THE COMMISSION, BUT THAT, WITH
REGARD TO YOUR RESPONSE:

"Mr Kavanagh also highlighted that the correspondence you provided
aboutSefton Council could be directed to the District Auditor, who
may beable to consider the issues and questions you raise. Mr
Kavanagh
provided you with details of the District Auditor for Sefton
Council
(PricewaterhouseCoopers); the name of the engagement lead (Peter
Chambers) and contact information (101 Barbirolli Square, Lower
MosleyStreet, Manchester, M2 3PW)."

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS WOULD BE REQUIRED BY A FOI REQUEST TO TELL
ME WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT KNOW ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson