Covert Correspondence

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that the IC has covert correspondence with
recipients of Data Subject Requests.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please refer to Mr Richard Roscoe, data protection officer at
Sefton Council who was involved, with other officers of Sefton
Council in the receipt of covert e-mail correspondence, i.e. hidden
(from myself but, with regard to myself) with the IC regarding this
matter and,

has been sent all the relevant information today regarding his part
in the matter showing without doubt the IC was covertly
corresponding with the Council and not disclosing that
correspondence to me as the material time and the IC,

gave Sefton Council advice and guidance that they used to my
prejudice in a court case against them and,

that information and advlce, provided to the Council by the IC, was
relied on in another claim I made against the Councils insurers,
both claims having been made based on the advice of the IC to me
regarding the correction, under the DPA by the court, of fallacious
information held by both parties about false insurance claims.

The direct result of that information and advice the IC provided to
Sefton was that my home now has a charge on it and I have court
costs of tens of thousands of pounds against me by both Sefton and
their insurers.

I now ask you to inform me which government department does the IC
fall under.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 Sir or Madam,

I REFER YO TO YOUR ANSWER TO MR MORRIS BELOW ON THIS TOPIC:

IC TO EDWIN MORRIS

Thank you for your email dated 27 December 2008 in which you have
made a request for information to the Information Commissioner’s
Office.

You have asked whether “the Information Commissioner or its
officials engage
in covert correspondence or communication.”

Technically your email is an enquiry rather than a request for
information held by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Nevertheless, as you have entitled your email ‘Freedom of
Information request’ it is being treated as such.

Unfortunately, however, it is not clear what you mean by the use of
the word‘covert’ and, thus, what information you are seeking.

As you are probably aware, the Information Commissioner administers
the Data
Protection and Freedom of Information Acts, the Environmental
InformationRegulations and the Privacy and Electronic Regulations.

We handle enquiries about all of these pieces of legislation, and
deal withcomplaints that organisations have failed to comply with
their
requirements.

Generally speaking we would hope to be as transparent as possible
and noneof our correspondence in connection with these matters is
considered to be‘covert’ in the sense that it is not secret.

However we do not, as a matter of course, provide copies of our
correspondence with an organisation which is the subject of a
complaint, to the individual who has made the complaint.
Nevertheless, if a complainant asks to be provided with this
correspondence we will provide it, except in a few exceptional
circumstances where it is appropriate for it to be withheld under
an appropriate exemption, or where information has been provided to
us in confidence.

For instance, we will ask an organisation for a copy of the
information
which has been withheld from an individual who has made a request
under the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. We do this in order to come to a view as to whether it
has been withheld in accordance with an exemption in the relevant
Act.

The information is therefore provided to us by the organisation
concerned, in confidence. We would not disclose it or any
correspondence containing references to it, to the complainant. If
we come to the view that the information has been improperly
withheld, we instruct the organisation to provide it to the
individual who has made the request.

Therefore, to respond to your question directly, we do not hold any
information which falls within the scope of your request. However,
if we have misinterpreted your request, and you wish to provide
clarification, do please let us know.

Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with this response and wish
to
request a review or make a complaint about how your request has
been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team at
the address below or e-mail [1][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within
40 working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such
request received after this time will only be considered at the
discretion of the Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that
your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a
further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the
statutory complaint handler under the legislation. To make such an
application, please write to the Case Reception Team, at the
address below or visit the ‘Complaints’ section of our website to
make a Freedom of Information Act complaint or a Data Protection
Act request for assessment online.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 JOANNE CROWLEY

TO THE FOLLOWING:

I HAVE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM THE IC’S MR VAN DAMMS
DATED JANUARY 12TH, POSTED ON JANUARY 14TH 2009 AND RECEIVED TODAY,
JANUARY 15th 2009, EVIDENTLY A FILE THE IC HAS A ON ME FROM WHICH
MR VAN DAMMS HAS EXTRACTED INFORMATION REGARDING MY COMPLAINT ABOUT
MY PERSONAL DATA SEFTON MBC WITHHELD FOR YEAR 1994.

THIS COMPLAINT I HAD AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL IN 2003, REFERENCED
03/36599/06, WHICH MR VAN DAMMS WAS INVOLVED IN WITH HIS LINE
MANAGER MR BLOOMFIELD FROM 2002, CULMINATED WITH THE “DURANT”
RULING BEING PROVIDED TO SEFTON BY MR VAN DAMMS IN 2003 WITH REGARD
TO A: RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM OF MY DATA CONSISTING OF SOME 700
DOCUMENTS AND, AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DISCLOSING DATA HELD BY ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE SUBSEQUENTLY USED BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE IN A CLAIM
AGAINST THEM FOR PROCESSING MY PERSONAL DATA WITH SEFTON COUNCIL
REGARDING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM(S).

THESE FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM(S) BY MYSELF AGAINST SEFTON
COUNCIL WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE BY

TWO LETTERS DATED AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1993FROM ME TO THE COUNCIL.

THE ALLEGED CLAIMS THAT AROSE FROM THOSE LETTERS WERE ALLEGEDLY
MADE BY ME FOR DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY WHEN I DID NOT LIVE IN IT
CAUSED DEMOLITION OF NONE EXISTENT BUILDINGS IN THE 1960’S WHEN,
SEFTON AND THE LAND REGISTRY SAY, 19 LIME GROVE WAS ATTACHED, OR
ADJOINED, TO 21 LIME GROVE BY A PARTY WALL.

THIS ALLEGED CLAIM WAS REFERENCED AND DATED BY SEFTON AND THE AON
CORPORATION AS JANUARY 1ST 1994 AS A PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM AGAINST
SEFTON WITH A RESERVE ON IT.

THE SAME CLAIM WAS REFERENCED AND DATED BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AS
RR98XN JANUARY 17TH 1994, FOR DEMOLITION OF MAISONETTES ON LAND
ADJOINING 19 LIME GROVE IN MARCH TO APRIL 1994.

MY SOLICITORS ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED FOR THIS DAMAGE ON JANUARY 26TH AND
NOVEMBER 29TH 1995.

THIS CLAIM IS REFERENCED W215732 BY AON FEBRUARY 20TH 1996 AND AS
AT01939 BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND ALLEGEDLY MADE BY.

A LETTER FROM MY SOLICITORS DATED NOVEMBER 29TH 1995.

IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 18TH 2000 FROM MYSELF TO SEFTON’S TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR WILLIAMS

ANOTHER CLAIM WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY ME AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL
REGARDING LATENT DAMAGE TO MY GABLE WALL CAUSED BY THE REMOVAL OF
SUPPORT, WHICH MANIFESTED IN JULY 1998.

SEFTON REFERENCE THIS CLAIM W215732 AND PROCESSED IT, IN MY NAME,
WITH ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE UNDER REFERENCE RR98XN.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN THE ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE CASE, THE DISTRICT
JUDGE STATED, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS THAT THEY HAD BEEN MADE BY
MYSELF OR MY SOLICITORS AGAINST SEFTON, NOT IN 1994, BUT IN
NOVEMBER 1995 AND APRIL 2000:

“HE SAYS THAT HE NEVER MADE CLAIM W215732 IN 1993…BY VIRTUE OF TWO
LETTERS WHICH ARE, WHATEVER ELSE IS UNCERTAIN, THEMSELVES CERTAIN.
THE FIRST IS A LETTER FROM CANTER LEVIN AND BERG TO SEFTON MBC,
WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT ON 29TH NOVEMBER 1996. THAT
LETTER STATES IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH:

“Perhaps you would be good enough to indicate which Department of
the Council, either yourselves or the Technical Department, is
going to deal with this claim as if we do not receive a suitable
response we shall have no option but to issue court proceedings.”

THE SECOND IS A LETTER WRITTEN BY MR ROBINSON HIMSELF ON 18TH APRIL
2000 TO A MR WILLIAMS, REFERRING TO THE MEETING HELD THAT DAY:

“It is my belief that during the development of the Kepler Street
site carried out be Sefton MBC, Maritime Housing Association,
Fawley Construction, a nib wall abutting my gable end was
demolished and has caused damage to my property. I accept your
offer to have an independent survey conducted with a view to
establishing what if ant damage has been caused.”

IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THOSE LETTERS DID REPRESENT CLAIMS OR
POTENTIAL CLAIMS…POTENTIAL CLAIM DOES NOT, TO MY MIND, MEAN A
FUTURE CLAIM…WHAT IT MEANS ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY GIVE RISE TO
A CLAIM…WHEN I PRACTISED AS A SOLICITOR I HAD PRECISELY THAT
OBLIGATION, AND A FAILURE TO REPORT ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN
THEY BECAME KNOWN COULD LEAD TO ANY FURTHER CLAIM BEING MADE THEN
BEING AVOIDED BY THE INSURER.”

MR VAN DAMMS WHO COVERTLY COMMUNICATED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL IN 2003
SEEMS TO BELIEVE I AM QUESTIONING A DPA DECISION IN 2004 – 2004 IN
MY FOI REQUESTS WHEN, IN FACT I AM NOT – HE STATES:

“I am writing further to your recent emails sent to out Internal
Compliance team on 22 December 2008 and the 6 and 7 January 2009.
You continue to query at length our handling of your complaint
about Sefton in 2004 (case reference 03/36599/06). On 8 October I
wrote to you and advised you that the IOC would not be revisiting
this matter. This position remains unchanged. Our decision in this
case was clearly communicated to you in our letter of 30 April
2004. Almost 5 years have passed since then. It is simply not
practicable for us to review this case after this length of time.
We will not therefore be responding to any further questions you
raise about the actions we took and decisions we reached in 2003 –
2004 when handling your complaint. In your email you ask which
Government Department the ICO report to. The ICO is the UK’s
independent public body set up to promote access to official
information and protect personal information. The Ministry of
Justice is our corresponding department within Government.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear JOANNE CROWLEY

YOUR DOWNLOAD DECEMBER 18TH 2008:

ICO Requests for Information
Review Procedure

Scope of Procedure

Although the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) is
the only legislation that requires the Information Commissioner to
have a review procedure, this procedure will be adopted for use in
relation to complaints made to the Information Commissioner
regarding any request for information.

Any applicant for information may make representations to the
Information Commissioner if it appears to them that he has failed
to comply with any of his duties to:

• make environmental information available in accordance with the
EIR,
• provide a data subject with access to his personal data in
accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA),
• provide a right of access to information held by the Information
Commissioner in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).

Timescale

Representations must be made in writing within 40 working days of
the date on which it appears to the applicant that the Information
Commissioner is in breach of his duty.

Procedure on Receipt of a Complaint

When such representations have been received the Internal
Compliance Team will log the complaint and send an acknowledgement
letter to the applicant.

The Internal Compliance Team will notify the Internal Compliance
Board (ICB) giving a brief explanation of why the complaint has
been submitted and to whom it has been allocated. It will then be
referred to a complaint handler.

The complaint will not be handled by anyone who dealt with the
original decision, although it may be necessary to consult the
original request handler and/or the Chair of the ICB. It will be
referred to an Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Operating Officer
or a Deputy Commissioner. Advice may also be sought by the
complaint handler from a FOI Senior Complaints Officer or Casework
and Advice Manager.

The complaint handler will consider the representations and any
supporting evidence produced by the applicant and decide if the
Information Commissioner has complied with his duties.

Where the request relates to personal data in accordance with the
DPA or environmental information in accordance with the EIR, the
applicant will be notified of the decision in writing within 40
calendar days of receipt of the representations. Where the request
relates to information held by the Information Commissioner in
accordance with the FOIA, the applicant will be notified of the
decision in writing within 20 working days from day the after
receipt of the representations.

If it is decided that the Information Commissioner has not complied
with his duties the breach shall be remedied immediately and the
Internal Compliance Manager, and request handler will be notified.
The Internal Compliance Team will ensure the proper recording and
processing of the internal review.

Formal Complaints

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for
information which has been dealt with under FOIA or EIR, he has the
right to make a formal complaint/request for a decision notice to
the Information Commissioner.

Should the applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as
any other similar request by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer not
previously involved in consideration of the request.

In the event that a decision notice is served and subsequently
appealed, the Information Commissioner himself will be consulted
and advised by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer and a lawyer not
previously involved in dealing with the request, internal review or
complaint.

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for their
personal data which has been dealt with under the DPA, he has the
right to ask the Commissioner to make an assessment as to whether
the request has been handled in accordance with the DPA. Should the
applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as any similar
request by a Casework and Advice Manager.

A summary of the Information Commissioner’s Enforcement Powers and
Appeal procedures are available on request.

YOUR DOWNLOAD DECEMBER 22ND 2008:

Thank you for your further email of 18 December 2008 regarding your
request
for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The first part of your email would appear to be an enquiry which
relates to
a previous complaint which you had with the ICO, our reference
03-36599/06.
Therefore this is not a request for information under the FOIA as
it is not
a request for recorded information. We have therefore referred this
part of
your email to our Casework and Advice Division which handles such
matters.

With regard to your final sentence in which you ask ‘which
government
department does the IC fall under’, please be advised that the ICO
is a
non-departmental government body therefore we are not part of a
government
department. However the ICO does have a sponsor department which is
the
Ministry of Justice ([1]www.justice.gov.uk).

As previously advised if you are dissatisfied with the response you
have
received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a
complaint
about how your request has been handled you should write to the
Internal
Compliance Team at the address below or e-mail
[2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within
40 working
days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received
after
this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that
your request
or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal
to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler
under the
legislation. To make such an application, please write to the Case
Reception Team, at the address below or visit the ‘Complaints’
section of
our website to make a Freedom of Information Act complaint or a
Data
Protection Act request for assessment online.

A further copy of our review procedure is attached.

ICO Requests for Information
Review Procedure

Scope of Procedure

Although the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) is
the only legislation that requires the Information Commissioner to
have a review procedure, this procedure will be adopted for use in
relation to complaints made to the Information Commissioner
regarding any request for information.

Any applicant for information may make representations to the
Information Commissioner if it appears to them that he has failed
to comply with any of his duties to:

• make environmental information available in accordance with the
EIR,
• provide a data subject with access to his personal data in
accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA),
• provide a right of access to information held by the Information
Commissioner in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).

Timescale

Representations must be made in writing within 40 working days of
the date on which it appears to the applicant that the Information
Commissioner is in breach of his duty.

Procedure on Receipt of a Complaint

When such representations have been received the Internal
Compliance Team will log the complaint and send an acknowledgement
letter to the applicant.

The Internal Compliance Team will notify the Internal Compliance
Board (ICB) giving a brief explanation of why the complaint has
been submitted and to whom it has been allocated. It will then be
referred to a complaint handler.

The complaint will not be handled by anyone who dealt with the
original decision, although it may be necessary to consult the
original request handler and/or the Chair of the ICB. It will be
referred to an Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Operating Officer
or a Deputy Commissioner. Advice may also be sought by the
complaint handler from a FOI Senior Complaints Officer or Casework
and Advice Manager.

The complaint handler will consider the representations and any
supporting evidence produced by the applicant and decide if the
Information Commissioner has complied with his duties.

Where the request relates to personal data in accordance with the
DPA or environmental information in accordance with the EIR, the
applicant will be notified of the decision in writing within 40
calendar days of receipt of the representations. Where the request
relates to information held by the Information Commissioner in
accordance with the FOIA, the applicant will be notified of the
decision in writing within 20 working days from day the after
receipt of the representations.

If it is decided that the Information Commissioner has not complied
with his duties the breach shall be remedied immediately and the
Internal Compliance Manager, and request handler will be notified.
The Internal Compliance Team will ensure the proper recording and
processing of the internal review.

Formal Complaints

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for
information which has been dealt with under FOIA or EIR, he has the
right to make a formal complaint/request for a decision notice to
the Information Commissioner.

Should the applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as
any other similar request by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer not
previously involved in consideration of the request.

In the event that a decision notice is served and subsequently
appealed, the Information Commissioner himself will be consulted
and advised by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer and a lawyer not
previously involved in dealing with the request, internal review or
complaint.

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for their
personal data which has been dealt with under the DPA, he has the
right to ask the Commissioner to make an assessment as to whether
the request has been handled in accordance with the DPA. Should the
applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as any similar
request by a Casework and Advice Manager.

A summary of the Information Commissioner’s Enforcement Powers and
Appeal procedures are available on request.

DOES NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST WHICH WAS:

"Will you confirm or deny that the IC has covert correspondence
with
recipients of Data Subject Requests."

THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO ANSWER
MY REQUEST.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Joanne Crowley

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 JOANNE CROWLEY

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 Sir or Madam,

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 Sir or Madam,
YOUR DOWNLOAD BELOW APPEARS NOT TO RELATE TO MY FOI REQUEST AS I
HAVE NOT INDICATED A DESIRE FOR IT TO BE TREATED AS A 'COMPLAINT:

ICO Requests for Information
Review Procedure

Scope of Procedure

Although the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) is
the only legislation that requires the Information Commissioner to
have a review procedure, this procedure will be adopted for use in
relation to complaints made to the Information Commissioner
regarding any request for information.

Any applicant for information may make representations to the
Information Commissioner if it appears to them that he has failed
to comply with any of his duties to:

• make environmental information available in accordance with the
EIR,
• provide a data subject with access to his personal data in
accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA),
• provide a right of access to information held by the Information
Commissioner in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).

Timescale

Representations must be made in writing within 40 working days of
the date on which it appears to the applicant that the Information
Commissioner is in breach of his duty.

Procedure on Receipt of a Complaint

When such representations have been received the Internal
Compliance Team will log the complaint and send an acknowledgement
letter to the applicant.

The Internal Compliance Team will notify the Internal Compliance
Board (ICB) giving a brief explanation of why the complaint has
been submitted and to whom it has been allocated. It will then be
referred to a complaint handler.

The complaint will not be handled by anyone who dealt with the
original decision, although it may be necessary to consult the
original request handler and/or the Chair of the ICB. It will be
referred to an Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Operating Officer
or a Deputy Commissioner. Advice may also be sought by the
complaint handler from a FOI Senior Complaints Officer or Casework
and Advice Manager.

The complaint handler will consider the representations and any
supporting evidence produced by the applicant and decide if the
Information Commissioner has complied with his duties.

Where the request relates to personal data in accordance with the
DPA or environmental information in accordance with the EIR, the
applicant will be notified of the decision in writing within 40
calendar days of receipt of the representations. Where the request
relates to information held by the Information Commissioner in
accordance with the FOIA, the applicant will be notified of the
decision in writing within 20 working days from day the after
receipt of the representations.

If it is decided that the Information Commissioner has not complied
with his duties the breach shall be remedied immediately and the
Internal Compliance Manager, and request handler will be notified.
The Internal Compliance Team will ensure the proper recording and
processing of the internal review.

Formal Complaints

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for
information which has been dealt with under FOIA or EIR, he has the
right to make a formal complaint/request for a decision notice to
the Information Commissioner.

Should the applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as
any other similar request by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer not
previously involved in consideration of the request.

In the event that a decision notice is served and subsequently
appealed, the Information Commissioner himself will be consulted
and advised by a FOI Senior Complaints Officer and a lawyer not
previously involved in dealing with the request, internal review or
complaint.

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with a request for their
personal data which has been dealt with under the DPA, he has the
right to ask the Commissioner to make an assessment as to whether
the request has been handled in accordance with the DPA. Should the
applicant do this, the complaint will be dealt with as any similar
request by a Casework and Advice Manager.

A summary of the Information Commissioner’s Enforcement Powers and
Appeal procedures are available on request.

ITS A QUESTION, I.E.:

"Will you confirm or deny that the IC has covert correspondence
with
recipients of Data Subject Requests."

I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES WE DO, OR NO WE DON'T,
AND WISH YOU TO CONFIRM OR DENY ONE OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES UNDER THE
FOIA AS AN ANSWER IS NOW OVERDUE.

NO AMOUNT OF COMPLAINING WILL ALTER THAT SIMPLE FACT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A COMPLAINT NOR CAN IT BE CONSTRUED AS ONE:

"Will you confirm or deny that the IC has covert correspondence
with
recipients of Data Subject Requests."

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.

I am writing to request an internal review of Information
Commissioner’s Office's handling of my FOI request 'Covert
Correspondence'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co... correspondence

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION



A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



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

(a) they are
defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



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



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



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



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



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



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



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



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



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



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


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



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



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



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



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

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



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

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



(11) Where


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

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



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


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



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



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



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



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



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



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



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



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



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



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


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



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



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



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



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



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


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

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

False Land Records

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

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

The Information

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

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

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

The Titles

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

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

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

Title LA45086

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

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

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

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

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

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

Fact

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

Registration of MS351603

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

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

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

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

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

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer you to The Prosecutor Pledge

Where there is an identifiable victim the prosecutor will:

Take into account the impact on the victim or their family when
making a charging decision.

In doing so the prosecutor will ensure that the charge adequately
reflects the criminality of the offending. Where there are
identified victims the prosecutor will, when selecting a charge,
listen to the voice of the victim through their witness statement
and, where the numbers of victims allow, through the victim
personal statement.

Inform the victim where the charge is withdrawn, discontinued or
substantially altered.

The prosecutor will establish with each victim whether they wish to
be kept informed of the withdrawal or dismissal of charges and will
write and keep them so informed if they do.

Where practical, seek a victim’s view or that of the family when
considering the acceptability of a plea.

In deciding on the acceptability of pleas the prosecutor will keep
in mind any views expressed by any of the witnesses who are
considered to be victims.

Address the specific needs of a victim and where justified seek to
protect their identity by making an appropriate application to the
court.

The prosecutor will form a judgment and, where appropriate, make an
application for “special measures” to ensure that victims are able
to give “best evidence” before the court. In appropriate
circumstances the prosecutor may also make an application to
protect the identity of the victim or prevent inappropriate
reporting in the media.

Assist victims at court to refresh their memory from their written
or video statement and answer their questions on court procedure
and processes.

A member of prosecution staff will introduce themselves to the
victim at court and whilst not permitted to discuss their evidence
will answer any questions on procedure and processes. The victim
will also be given an opportunity to read their statement or see
their video taped statement before giving evidence.

Promote and encourage two-way communications between victim and
prosecutor at court.

The prosecutor will ensure that during the course of the court
hearing any victim who so requests is kept informed of the progress
of the case. The prosecutor will promote two-way communication to
enable a victim to pass to the prosecutor any information that may
assist in the conduct of the prosecution or have a bearing on an
assertion made by the defence.

Protect victims from unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on their
character and may seek the court’s intervention where cross
examination is considered to be inappropriate or oppressive.

The prosecutor will be alert during the course of the trial to
unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on the victim’s character and may
seek the court’s intervention where, for example, the prosecutor
considers that cross-examination by the defence is inappropriate or
oppressive.

On conviction, robustly challenge defence mitigation which is
derogatory to a victim’s character.

At the sentencing stage, the prosecutor will challenge any
assertion by the defence in mitigation which is derogatory to a
victim’s character and which is considered either false or
irrelevant to proper sentencing considerations.

On conviction apply for appropriate order for compensation,
restitution or future protection of the victim.

The prosecutor will always consider making any relevant application
for ancillary orders such as compensation or restitution and where
appropriate and justified on the evidence encourage the court to
impose a restraining order for the future protection of the victim.

Keep victims informed of the progress of any appeal, and explain
the effect of the court’s judgment.

Where a case is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal
(Criminal) Division the prosecutor will ensure that any identified
victims are advised of the hearing and that the grounds on which
the appeal is made and the effect of the court’s judgement are
properly explained.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I TRUST THAT YOU ARE CONFIRMING:

"That the IC has covert correspondence with recipients of Data
Subject Requests."

AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DENY THAT FACT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson