Definitive evidence on the court computer

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that the court computer record overrides a
file stamped document when the information on the court computer
differs from that on the filed document.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

COVERT MEANS SECRET OR HIDDEN.

OVERT MEANS OPEN.

RECIPIENT MEANS SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES SOMETHING.

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2002:

May 7 – 14 – 22

July 15

August 6 - 22

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

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

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2004:

March 3

April 8 – 14

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

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

June 4

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION 

I REFER YOU TO THE "EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK"



Chapter 1.3 Unrepresented parties - Key points

The ‘litigant in
person’

Most unrepresented parties are stressed and worried,
operating in
 an alien environment in what for them is a foreign
language.

They
 are trying to grasp concepts of law and procedure about which
they
may be totally ignorant. They may well be experiencing
feelings of
fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and
disadvantage,
especially if appearing against a represented party.

The outcome of
the case may have a profound effect and long-term
consequences upon
their life.

They may have agonised over whether the case was worth
 the risk to
their health and finances, and therefore feel 
passionately about
their situation.



Role of the judge



Judges and those who chair tribunals must be aware of the
feelings 
and difficulties experienced by unrepresented parties and
be ready 
and able to help them, especially if a represented party
is being
 oppressive or aggressive.

Maintaining patience and an even-handed
approach is also important
where the unrepresented party is being
 oppressive or aggressive
towards another party or its
 representative or towards the court.

The judge should, however,
 remain understanding so far as possible
as to what might lie behind
their behaviour.

Maintaining a balance between assisting and 
understanding what the
unrepresented party requires, while
 protecting their represented
opponent against the problems that
can be caused by the
unrepresented party ’s lack of legal and
procedural knowledge, is
the key.



1.3.1 Introduction



There are a number of reasons why individuals may choose to

represent themselves rather than instruct a lawyer.

Many do not
 qualify for public funding, either financially or
because of the 
nature of their case.

Some cannot afford a solicitor and even
 distrust lawyers.

Others believe that they will be better at
 putting their own case
across.



This section aims to identify the difficulties faced (and caused)

by litigants in person before, during and after the litigation

process, and to provide guidance to judges with a view to
ensuring
that both parties receive a fair hearing where one or both
is not
represented by a lawyer.

This chapter supplements and should be
 read in conjunction with
Chapter 1.1.

Subject to the law relating to vexatious litigants,
everybody of
full age and capacity is entitled to be heard in
person by any
 court or tribunal which is concerned to adjudicate
in proceedings
in which that person is a party.

But on the whole those who 
exercise this personal right find that
they are operating in an
alien environment.

The courts and tribunals have not traditionally
 been receptive to
their needs.

All too often the litigant in person 
is regarded as a problem for
judges and for the court system rather 
than a person for whom the
system of civil justice exists.



Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report June 1995



It is curious that lay litigants have been regarded … as
problems,
almost as nuisances for the court system. This has meant
that the 
focus has generally been upon the difficulties that
litigants in 
person pose for the courts rather than the other way
around.



Prof. John Baldwin, Monitoring the Rise of the Small Claims
Limit



Unrepresented parties are likely to experience feelings of
fear,
ignorance, anger, frustration and bewilderment.

They will feel at a
profound disadvantage, despite the fact that
the outcome may have a 
profound effect and long-term consequences
on their lives.

The aim
 of the judge or tribunal chair should be to ensure that
the parties 
leave with the sense that they have been listened to
and had a fair
hearing – whatever the outcome.

In what follows,
the term ‘unrepresented party’ encompasses those 
preparing a case
for trial, those conducting their own case at
 trial and those
wishing to enforce a judgement or to appeal.



Disadvantages faced



The disadvantages faced by unrepresented parties stem from their

lack of knowledge of the law and court procedure.

For many
 their perception of the court environment will be based
on what 
they have seen on the television and in films.

They tend to:

be unfamiliar with the language and specialist
vocabulary of legal 
proceedings;

have little knowledge of the procedures involved and
 find it
difficult to apply the rules even if they do read them;


lack objectivity and emotional distance from their case;

be 
unskilled in advocacy and unable to undertake cross-examination
or 
test the evidence of an opponent;

be ill-informed about the 
presentation of evidence;

be unable to understand the relevance of
 law and regulations to
their own problem, or to know how to
 challenge a decision that
they believe is wrong.



All these factors have an adverse effect on the preparation
and
presentation of their case.

Equally, there are other unrepresented
parties who are familiar
with the requirements of the process.



Numbers



Increasing numbers of people are now also representing themselves

in the civil and family courts.



The small claims procedure in the county court is
designed
specifically to assist the public to pursue claims without
recourse 
to legal representation and has created a huge increase
in the 
number of unrepresented parties.

The vast majority of defended
civil actions in the county court are
dealt with under this procedure
dure and it is a sign of its
success that its jurisdiction was 
increased (subject to certain
exceptions in personal injury cases) 
from claims of up to £1,000,
to claims of up to £5,000.

With the 
consent of the parties, cases of a certain type can
encompass
substantially greater claims.

Public funding has never been 
available for small claims.



Unrepresented parties also appear with increasing frequency in
the
Court of Appeal in criminal, civil and family cases.

Some have represented themselves at first instance.

Others, having had lawyers
 appear for them in the court below,
take their own cases on appeal,
often through a withdrawal of
public funding after the first
 instance hearing.



Ways to help



The aim is to ensure that unrepresented parties understand what
is
going on and what is expected of them at all stages of
the
proceedings – before, during and after any attendances at
a
hearing.



This means ensuring that: the process is (or has been) explained
to
them in a manner that they can understand; they have access
to
appropriate information (e.g. the rules, practice directions
and
guidelines – whether from publications or websites); they are

informed about what is expected of them in ample time for them to

comply; wherever possible they are given sufficient time
according
to their own needs.

1.3.2

Particular areas of difficulty



Those who are involved in legal proceedings without
legal
representation may face a daunting range of problems of
both
knowledge and understanding...

...

Information



...

Many unrepresented parties believe that the court staff are
there 
to give legal advice.

Under the Courts Charter court staff can only
 give information on
how a case may be pursued; they cannot give
 legal advice under any
circumstances.



1.3.3 Before the court appearance



Statements of case and witness statements

Unrepresented parties
may make basic errors in the preparation of
civil cases by:

failing to choose the best cause of action or
defence; overlooking
limitation periods;

not appreciating that they 
are witnesses in their own cases;

failing to file their own witness
s statements in advance of trial
(and not understanding that in
consequence they may not be able to
give evidence).



The individual’s level of knowledge should be taken into account
in
 civil cases when deciding whether to make allowances for such

failures.

A flexible approach ought to be adopted where possible,
even if
this involves an adjournment.



Some of these problems are addressed in the Protocols of the
Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR).

The Court Service has produced a new series
 of leaflets for
unrepresented parties in the light of the CPR.



Directions and court orders



Unrepresented parties often do not understand pre-hearing

directions (in particular those imposing time deadlines and
‘unless
 orders’) or the effect of court orders so:



ensure that they leave a directions hearing appreciating exactly

what is required of them;

involve them in the process of giving 
those directions (e.g.
asking them how much time they need to take
a particular step and
why) so that they realise that the directions
 relate to the
conduct of their own case;

explain fully the precise
meaning of any particular direction or
court order.



Sometimes they believe that if the other side has failed to
comply 
with such directions, that in itself is evidence in support
of 
their own case, or the opponent should be prevented from
defending
 or proceeding further.

They often feel upset at what they regard as 
an over-tolerant
attitude by the courts to delays by solicitors.



Documentary evidence



A common problem is lack of understanding about the use
and
application of documents and bundles.

Experience shows that
 unrepresented parties:



tend not to make sufficient use of documentary or
photographic
evidence in their cases;

fail to appreciate the need for maps and
plans of any location
relevant to the case.



Preliminary hearings represent an opportunity to give guidance on

these matters.



Disclosure of documents



The duty to disclose documents is frequently neglected by
unrepresented parties.

Some will have little or no appreciation
that they should adopt a
‘cards on the table’ approach.


Consequently there can be delay, either because of the need to

adjourn or because the judge or the other side requires time at
the 
hearing to read recently disclosed documents.

When a pre-trial 
hearing takes place, a short clear explanation of
the duty of
 disclosure and the test as to whether or not a
document needs to be 
disclosed helps both parties and the court in
terms of time saved.



Preparing bundles



Many unrepresented parties do not have access to office facilities

and have difficulties in photocopying documents, preparing bundles

and typing witness statements.

They have little concept of the need
 for documents to be in
chronological order and paginated.

Putting 
the case back is often the sensible course to take, in the
event of 
litigants coming to court with their bundles in other
than proper
order.



Producing documents



All too often unrepresented parties do not bring relevant
documents
with them to the hearing.

The court or tribunal is faced with the
comment:

‘I can produce it – it is at home’, but it is then too
 late and an
adjournment is likely to be expensive and will usually 
be
refused.



The party should have been warned in advance not only to
disclose
relevant documents to the other side but to produce the
originals 
at the hearing.



Sources of law



Most unrepresented parties do not have access to legal textbooks
or
libraries where such textbooks are available and may not be able
to
down-load information from a legal website.

Why not let an
 individual, accompanied by a member of the court
staff, have access
to the court library or to a particular book?



Sometimes unrepresented parties do not understand the role of
case
law and are confused by the fact that the judge or tribunal
appears
 to be referring to someone else’s case.



A brief explanation of the doctrine of precedent will enable
an
unrepresented party to appreciate what is going on and why.

A
re presented party’s lawyer should be told to produce any

authorities to be relied on at the outset.

An unrepresented party
 must be given proper opportunity to read
such authorities and make
 submissions in relation to them.



Live evidence



Judges and tribunal chairs are often told: ‘All you have to do is

to ring Mr X and he will confirm what I am saying.’

When it is
 explained that this is not possible, unrepresented
parties may 
become aggrieved and fail to understand that it is for
them to
prove their case.



They should be informed at an early stage that they must prove
what
they say by witness evidence so may need to approach witnesses
in
advance and ask them to come to court.

The need for expert evidence
 should also be explained and the fact
that no party can call an
 expert witness unless permission has
been given by the court, 
generally in advance.



When there is an application to adjourn, bear in mind
that
unrepresented parties may genuinely not have realised just
how
important the attendance of such witnesses is.

If the application
is refused a clear explanation should be
given.



Adjournments



Un represented parties may not appreciate the need to obtain
an
adjournment order if a hearing date presents them with

difficulties.



It is a common misconception that it is sufficient to write to
the 
court without consulting the other side, merely asking for the
case
to be put off to another date, or that no more than a day’s
notice
of such a request is required.

Conversely, unrepresented parties 
may find it difficult to
understand why cases need to be adjourned
 if they over- run
because of the way in which they or others have
 presented their
cases, or why their cases have not started at the
time at which
they were listed.

..

...The hearing



The judge or chair of a tribunal is a facilitator of justice
and
may need to assist the unrepresented party in ways that are
not
 appropriate for a party who has employed skilled legal
advisers and 
an experienced advocate.

This may include:



attempting to elicit the extent of the understanding of that party

at the outset and giving explanations in everyday language;

making
clear in advance the difference between justice and a just
trial on
 the evidence (i.e. that the case will be decided on the
basis of
 the evidence presented and the truthfulness and accuracy
of the 
witnesses called).



Explanations by the judge



Basic conventions and rules need to be stated at the start of a

hearing.

The judge’s name and the correct mode of address should
be
clarified. Individuals present need to be introduced and their

roles explained... An unrepresented party who does not understand

something or has a problem with any aspect of the case should be

told to inform the judge immediately so that the problem can be

addressed.

The purpose of the hearing and the particular matter or
 issue on
which a decision is to be made must be clearly stated.

A
 party may take notes but the law forbids the making of
personal
tape-recordings. If the unrepresented party needs a short
break for
personal reasons, they only have to ask. The golden rule
is that 
only one person may speak at a time and each side will
have a full
opportunity to present its case.

..

...1.1.

Purpose of hearing



The purpose of a particular hearing may not be understood.
For
example, the hearing of an application to set aside a judgement
may
be thought to be one in which the full merits of the case will
be 
argued.

The procedure following a successful application should be 
clearly
explained, such as the need to serve the proceedings on
the
defendant, for a full defence to be filed and directions which
may
be given thereafter so that the parties know what is going to

happen next.



The judge’s role 

It can be hard to strike a balance in assisting
an unrepresented
 party in an adversarial system. An unrepresented
party may easily
 get the impression that the judge does not pay
sufficient attention
 to them or their case, especially if the
other side is represented
 and the judge asks the advocate on the
other side to summarise the 
issues between the parties.



Explain the judge’s role during the hearing.

If you are doing
 something which might be perceived to be unfair
or controversial in
 the mind of the unrepresented party, explain
precisely what you are
 doing and why.

Adopt to the extent necessary an inquisitorial role
 to enable the
unrepresented party fully to present their case (but
 not in such a
way as to appear to give the unrepresented party an
undue
advantage).



The real issues



Many unrepresented parties will not appreciate the real issues in

the case. For example, a litigant might come to court believing

that they are not liable under a contract because it is not in

writing, or that they can win the case upon establishing that the

defendant failed to care when the real issue in the case is
whether
or not the defendant’s negligence caused the loss.



At the start of any hearing it is vital to identify and if
possible
 establish agreement as to the issues to be tried so that
all
 parties proceed on this basis. Time spent in this way can
shorten 
the length of proceedings considerably.



Compromise



Unrepresented parties may not know how to compromise or even
that
they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to
trying
to reach a compromise.



Tell them, particularly in civil proceedings, that the role of the

court is dispute resolution – explanations as to forms of

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be appropriate.

Ask them
 whether they have tried to resolve their differences by
negotiation 
and, if possible, spell out the best and worst
possible outcomes at 
the outset.

This can lead to movement away from the idea that to 
negotiate is
a sign of weakness.

Remind them to tell the court in 
advance if their case has been
settled.



Advocacy



Often unrepresented parties phrase questions wrongly and some
find
 it hard not to make a statement when they should
be
cross-examining.

Explain the difference between evidence and
 submissions, and help
them put across a point in question form.



Unrepresented parties frequently have difficulty in
understanding
 that merely because there is a different version of
events to their
 own, this does not necessarily mean that the other
side is lying.


Similarly, they may construe any suggestion from the other side

that their own version is not true as an accusation of lying.

Be 
ready to explain that this is not automatically so.



Where one party is represented, invite this advocate to make
final
submissions first, so that an unrepresented party can see how
it
 should be done.



Criminal cases

Under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of
Human Rights,
everyone charged with a criminal offence has the
right to defend
him or herself in person or through legal
assistance of his or her
 own choosing or, if he or she has not
sufficient means to pay for 
legal assistance, to be given it free
where the interests of
 justice so require.



Those who dispense with legal assistance do so, almost
always,
because they decline to accept the advice which they have
been
 given, whether as to plea or the conduct of the trial.

A firm hand 
almost always persuades such defendants that they are
much better 
advised to retain their representatives.

If this does not work the 
problem for the judge is to do with
retaining control over the 
proceedings rather than sensitive
explanation to the defendant of
 the rules of procedure and
evidence.



Cross-examination



Throughout a trial a judge must be ready to assist a defendant
in
 the conduct of their case.

This is particularly so when the
 defendant is examining or
cross-examining witnesses and giving 
evidence:



always ask the defendant whether they wish to call any witnesses;


be ready to restrain unnecessary, intimidating or humiliating

cross-examination;

be prepared to discuss the course of proceedings
with the defendant
in the absence of the jury before they embark on 
any
cross-examination;

note the statutory prohibitions on
 cross-examination by an
unrepresented defendant.



Conduct of the defence



Paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction Crown Court
(Defendant’s
Evidence) [1995] 2 Cr App R 192 puts a duty on a judge
to address 
an unrepresented defendant at the conclusion of the
evidence for
 the prosecution and in the presence of the jury as
follows:



You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you
to
make your defence.

You may give evidence on oath, and be
 cross-examined like any
other witness.

If you do not give evidence
 or, having been sworn without good
cause, refuse to answer any
 question, the jury may draw such
inferences as appear proper.

That 
means they may hold it against you.

You may also call any witness
or witnesses whom you have arranged
to attend court.

Afterwards you 
may also, if you wish, address the jury by arguing
your case from 
the dock.

But you cannot at that stage give evidence.

Do you now
 intend to give evidence?



Summing up



In the course of summing up a case to a jury in which the
defendant
is unrepresented, tell the jury that it was always open
to
 defendants to represent themselves and that the jury should
bear
 in mind the difficulty for defendants in properly presenting
their 
case.

In some cases, such comments may be more appropriate at
the
outset.



Adjournments



Sometimes a defendant in a criminal case becomes an
unrepresented
party during the case either by reason of the
defendant’s
representatives withdrawing or because they are
dismissed by the
defendant.



Bear in mind that you may exercise your discretion in deciding

whether or not to grant an adjournment to enable fresh
legal
representatives to be instructed.

That decision should be based on
 what is in the interests of
justice having regard to the interests
 of the witnesses, the
public and the defendant, the stage reached
 in the trial and the
likely ability of the defendant to conduct the 
defence case
properly.

Bear in mind also the duty to warn a 
defendant against any course
that might not be in that defendant’s 
best interests, but if the
defendant decides to go on alone, allow
t hem to do so.



1.3.5 Assistance and representation



A party to civil or family proceedings may wish to be assisted by
a
‘friend’ at a hearing or even represented by a person without

rights of audience.



In a climate where legal aid is virtually unobtainable and
lawyers
disproportionately expensive, the McKenzie friend and
lay
representative make a significant contribution to access to

justice.

But reported cases tend to concentrate upon reasons why 
they
should not be allowed rather than circumstances where they may
be
of assistance to a party and the court.

The judge has to 
identify those situations where such support is
beneficial and
 distinguish circumstances where it should not be
allowed.



In addition the need for a litigation friend must be recognised
and 
this has changed with the introduction of a new mental
capacity
 jurisdiction (see further Chapter 5.4, section 5.4.3).



‘McKenzie friend’



This term refers to an assistant or friend (whether lawyer or
not) 
who assists in presenting the case by taking notes, quietly
making
suggestions or giving advice.

The role differs from that of the 
advocate in that the McKenzie
friend does not address the court or 
examine any witnesses and is
generally permitted at trials or full
 hearings although the
‘friend’ can be excluded if unsuitable (e.g.
someone who is
pursuing their own or an unsuitable agenda).

It may
be less appropriate to allow such assistance in private
(chambers) 
hearings because the judge generally then provides more
assistance 
to an unrepresented party.



A McKenzie friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in

relation to the proceedings nor manage the case outside court
(e.g.
by signing court documents).



The Court of Appeal summarised the principles in Paragon
Finance
plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, as
follows:



A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such: the only right
was
 that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.



A McKenzie friend was not entitled to address the court: if he
did
 so, he would become an advocate and require the grant of a
right of
audience.



As a general rule, a litigant in person who wished to have a

McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge was

satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice did not so

require.

However, the court could prevent a McKenzie friend from
 continuing
to act in that capacity where the assistance he gave
 impeded the
efficient administration of justice.



See also R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1811 and
Re
G (Chambers proceedings: next friend) [1999] 2 FLR 59, CA.



A differently constituted Court of Appeal in Re O (Children):
Re
W-R (A Child): Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759; [2005] 2
FLR
967 (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ) has since offered this guidance in
family
proceedings:



There is a strong presumption in favour of a litigant in person

being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend.

A request should
 not be refused without compelling reasons, even
where the
 proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in
private.

The
fact that the unrepresented party appears to be capable
of
conducting his case does not begin to outweigh the
strong
presumption in favour of allowing such assistance.

The fact that a
 proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an
organisation that promotes a 
particular cause is no reason for not
allowing him to undertake the
 role.

It was not for the litigant in person to justify his desire 
to
have a McKenzie friend but for the objecting party to rebut the

presumption in favour of allowing it.

There is no justification for 
refusing to allow a McKenzie friend
simply because it is a 
directions hearing.

Proposed McKenzie friends should not be
 excluded from the
courtroom or chambers whilst the application for
 assistance is
being made.

The proposed McKenzie friend should 
produce a short CV or
statement about himself confirming that he
 has not interest in the
case and understands his role and the duty
 of confidentiality.



In February 2005, the President of the Family Division
produced
guidance to judges in family proceedings and this is
reproduced in
 the following pages.



Rights of audience

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
section 27 regulates the
 right to appear in court.

General rights of audience (advocacy 
rights) are granted to duly
qualified barristers or solicitors (and
certain others) and
employees of solicitors may appear at hearings
in ‘private’.

In addition:

 the court may refuse to hear a person (for reasons
which relate to
 him as an individual) who would otherwise have a
right of audience 
but must give reasons;

a court has discretionary power to grant an
 unqualified person a
right of audience in relation to particular 
proceedings before
that court;

a special provision is made for lay 
representatives in the small
claims track of the county court.


There is a right of audience in the presence of the party at the

hearing itself but the court may in its discretion hear a lay

representative in the absence of the party – Civil Procedure
Rules
1998, PD27 para. 3.2;

Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order
1999.



Lay representative



The term ‘lay representative’ relates to a person who does not

possess advocacy rights and may not even be a lawyer, but to whom

the court grants a right of audience on behalf of a party in

relation to the proceedings before that court.

The party must apply 
at the outset of a hearing if he wishes an
unqualified individual to
 be granted a right of audience, and
parties cannot consent to an
 unqualified person exercising a right
of audience – Clarkson v
Gilbert [2002] 2 FLR 839 (CA);

D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 2
FCR 206; [1997] 1 FLR 724
(CA).



It may, however, be appropriate to grant a right of audience on a

one-off basis (e.g. where a party is inform and cannot afford the

services of a lawyer).

The following guidance was offered by Lord 
Woolf in Clarkson v
Gilbert & ors (see above):



“Now that legal aid was not available as readily as it had been
in
the past, there were going to be situations where litigants
were
 forces to bring proceedings in person where they would need

assistance. ... litigants in person had to indicate why they
needed
some other person who was not qualified to act on their
behalf. ...
it would be for them to satisfy the court that it was
appropriate. 
If somebody’s health did not, or might no enable them
to conduct
 proceedings themselves, and if they lacked means, those
were the 
sort of circumstances that could justify a court saying
that they
 should have somebody who could act as an advocate on
their behalf.
... the objections to someone setting themselves up
as an
 unqualified advocate did not exist where a husband was
merely
 seeking to assist his wife.

”

But the party should still be present unless there is a
justifiable 
reason for absence. It may even in some circumstances
be helpful to
 a court or tribunal to recognise the representative
as Neuberger J.
pointed out in Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (2001) The
Times, 9 August
2001:



“In some circumstances common sense and experience suggests that
a
relatively inarticulate and unknowledgeable litigant prompted at

every turn results in the case taking far longer than if the
friend
 speaks directly for him. Every time the court raises a
point or 
puts a point to the litigant in person it has to be
explained to
 the litigant which often takes longer than explaining
it to his 
friend. Then the litigant has to have the answer
explained to him
 by the friend, where after the litigant passes
the answer to the
court. This is a process which self-evidently
prolongs the hearings
and, like chinese whispers, is fraught with
potential
 misunderstanding.”



Once the privilege has been granted it is difficult to withdraw it

even if the representative turns out to be unsuitable.

Problems 
arise where an unqualified person is seeking to provide
general
 advocacy services, or appears to be pursuing a separate
agenda.

In
Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal

offered guidance:



The discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did

not meet the stringent requirements of the 1990 Act were only to
be
exercises in exceptional circumstances and after careful

consideration.

The courts had to consider carefully whether to
 grant rights to
individuals who made a practice of seeking to 
represent otherwise
unrepresented litigants.

The person to be 
represented should normally justify the request
and be present at
 the hearing when personal interests are
involved.



Conducting litigation



There is a distinction between the conduct of litigation on behalf

of a party and advocacy at hearings.

The former relates to the 
claim form, statement of case and any
applications made during the
course of the hearing.

A ‘statement of truth’ will generally be
required to support such
documents and must be signed by the party
(or litigation friend) or
the legal representative – CPR
r.22.1(6)(a).

Special provision is made in respect of companies –
see PD 22 para
3 and r.39.6.



The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 28 regulates the

right to conduct litigations.



In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal

also offered the following guidance as to right of an
unqualified
person to conduct litigation in the courts on behalf of
a party:


the existence of such right is determined solely in accordance with

Part II of the 1990 Act; section 28(2)(c) permits a court to
grant
 an otherwise unqualified person the right to conduct
litigation in
 relation to particular proceedings and to remove
that right if it
 is being abused;

the grant of the right should be carried out 
having regard to the
same considerations as the grant of a right of 
audience.



Attorneys

The court controls its own procedures and principles
for agency do
 not apply, so a power of attorney cannot confer a
right to conduct
 litigation or of audience – Gregory v Turner, R
(on application of
 Morris) v North Somerset Council [2003] EWCA
Civ 183; [2003] 1 WLR
1149 (CA).



Official Solicitor



The Official Solicitor represents parties prior to proceedings who

are without capacity, deceased or unascertained when no other

suitable person or agency is able and willing to do so.

The purpose
is to prevent a possible denial of justice and
safeguard the
welfare, property or status of the party.



He usually becomes formally involved when appointed by the
Court,
and may act as his own solicitor, or instruct a private firm
of 
solicitors to act for him.

The vision statement of the Official
 Solicitor’s Office is:

“...

to be an organisation delivering high quality customer focused

legal services for vulnerable persons, where those services need
to
be provided by the public sector ...

”

Enquiries are frequently made by the judiciary and members of
the
legal profession and the Official Solicitor can be contacted
at:

81 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1DD DX 141150 London/Chancery
Lane WC2
Tel.: 020 7911 7127 Fax.: 020 7911 7105
Email:
enquiries@offsol.gsi.gov.uk Website:
www.offsol.demon.co.uk



Representing adults who lack capacity



An order directing the Official Solicitor to act as a
legal
representative in a civil court for an incapacitated party
will
 either be made with his prior consent or only take effect if
his 
consent is obtained.

The Official Solicitor needs to be satisfied 
that his involvement
will be consistent with the Vision Statement
 and in appropriate
cases he will also require security that his 
charges and expenses
will be met before agreeing to act.



Assisting the civil courts



The Official Solicitor may also be called on to give confidential

advice to judges, to instruct counsel to appear before a judge to

assist the court as advocate to the court, or to investigate any

matter on which the court needs a special report...

...Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau



Litigants in person should also be aware of the services
provided
 by local Personal Support Units and Citizen’s Advice
Bureaux. The
PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be
contacted on
 020 7947 7701, by email at [email address] or at the
enquiry desk.


The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted

on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk.

1.3.6

After the hearing



Having won or lost the case, the unrepresented party will need
to
understand what has happened and the options available or steps

that can still be taken.



Explaining the decision



Unrepresented parties often do not understand the outcome of the

case and the reasons for it.

The following guidance is particularly
 important, therefore, if
they have lost.



Always set out clearly the reasons for the decision.

If possible,
provide an unrepresented party with a copy of the
order before
 leaving the court.

If judgement is reserved, or the order is to be
 sent on, tell the
unrepresented party approximately when they can
 expect to hear
further from the court and why there may be a delay.



Costs



Unrepresented parties are frequently unaware that they may
recover
costs, either from public funds in criminal matters or from
the 
losing side in civil cases.

If such party is entitled to costs but
 says nothing, consider
drawing the question of costs to their 
attention, without offering
advice, so that any relevant costs 
application can be made.

If an application is made that an
unrepresented party pays the
costs, an explanation must be given
 with an opportunity to argue
against this.



Appeal



Unless the unrepresented party has been wholly successful in
the
case, explain the requirement to seek leave to appeal, if

applicable. Tell the unrepresented party to consider their rights

of appeal, but explain that the court cannot give any advice as
to
the exercise of those rights.



Enforcement



An unrepresented party may be wholly unaware of the fact
that
although a civil judgement has been secured, it still has to
be 
enforced.

It is important, therefore:

to explain this in general terms at
the end of the case and to make
it clear that the court cannot
advise on enforcement, but that
 leaflets are available at the
court office; to explain the 
alternatives and that, short of
giving advice, the court staff are 
always willing to try to help
on matters of enforcement.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FRAUD OFFICE
REGARDING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS UPHELD BY THE COURT AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, BUT DENIED BY SEFTON COUNCIL AND ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE:

YOUR RESPONSE FEBRUARY 19TH 2009

“You are correct in stating that your email of 15 November is not a
request for information under FOIA. You appear to be asking for an
opinion on an allegation rather than requesting information, and
this was addressed in SFO’s mail to you sent on 24/11/08.”

MY REQUEST:

“When a Council conspire to create a fraudulent insurance claim
with its insurers and spends tens of thousands of pounds of public
money concealing that crime from the alleged claimant and the
courts
which, is aided and abetted by its insurers. Does that crime
warrants the investigation of the Council in the public interest by
your office.”

YOUR RESPONSE NOVEMBER 24TH 2008:

We have considered the allegations you have raised with us and it
is our view that this would not be appropriate for us to
investigate your concerns at this time. However you may consider
forwarding your concerns to other organisations (detailed below) in
the first instance, which might be able to assist you further.
Generally, if these organisations found, through their
investigations and with the information provided to them that there
was serious or complex fraud that we should look at, then they
would usually refer the matter to us.

THE “ORGINISATION” ABOVE YOU REFERRED ME TO CONTACT WAS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WHO, IN CONCERT WITH SEFTON COUNCIL STATES I
CAN OR HAVE MADE AN INSURANCE CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNCIL DESPITE THE
COUNCIL AND THEIR INSURERS, ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE, CONFIRMING THAT
THE COUNCIL WERE NOT INDEMNIFIED BY THEM FOR ANY SUCH CLAIM.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION:

FAO Judge Fitzgerald Claim 6LV50680 and 5LV53314

The Legal Secretary to the Law Offices
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London
SW1E 6JP

Dear Sir or Madam

Request Under CPR 39.8.2 5 (i) and (ii) – Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v
Maritime Housing Association

With regard to the above request and further correspondence sent to
you, and the Defendant solicitors, I have received the enclosed
letter regarding a Part 8 Claim, 6LV50690, requiring no defence and
which was issued and served on February 3rd 2006 but, not
acknowledged, however, the Defendant solicitor evidently now seeks
to apply for a civil restraining order on December 13th 2007 in
regard to this claim on the basis, inter alia, of his own rejected
application in claim 5LV53314 dated July 29th 2005, which was
rejected by the court on August 1st 2005 on the basis that
judgement had been obtained against his client by myself.

Clearly this application is unfounded, an abuse of process, and
should not be heard on December 13th 2007 as it has been struck out
and costs awarded against me with regard to it. This being so, no
further application can be made regarding it to restrain me in it.
The Defendant solicitors act as if Judge Fitzgerald is their
trained poodle, in court in my claim only to do tricks for them at
their suggestion.

I also enclose a filed Freedom of Information request to Sefton
Council regarding the ownership of land and liability for an
alleged claim against the Council by myself dated 1993 and January
17th 1994 (which is fraudulent) for alleged damage to 19 Lime Grove
in the 1960’s, prior to my occupation of it, by the (impossible)
demolition of none existent buildings which alleged claim, was
known to the Defendant from at least February 1999 as a claim made
by myself in 1993 and is relied on in the Defendants defence as a
claim made by myself when I allegedly lived in 9,11,or 13 Lime
Grove, i.e., a “mid terrace location”, despite the evidence filed
on February 2nd 2006 proving with OS maps from the 1850’s that no
such adjoinment had ever existed - and therefore, the claim W215732
dated 1993 could not be the ‘font’ of any damage to 19 Lime Grove -
and therefore, destroying Sefton Councils and Aon Corporations
(verified) version of claim W215732 as being dated 1993 and January
1st 1994 and clearly based on the fallacy that 19 and 21 Lime Grove
had been adjoined when I had lived in a “mid terrace location” in
Lime Grove. I also enclose two letters from Maritime dated
September 28th and October 5th 1999 (bold Added) in which they aver
that:

“In March 1st 1994 when Fawley Construction took possession of the
site, demolition work was still being undertaken by Sefton
Council…up until September 1994, so far as we were aware the site
was under the control of Sefton Council, who between July and
September were not acting on behalf of this Association…Sefton
acted as this Associations Agents…in that they were appointed by us
to oversee and look after out interests while the houses were being
built. Their activities would have included control of the way the
contractors operated…unless Fawley Construction actually demolished
your “nib” wall, they could not be held responsible as there was
physical demolition of the maisonette blocks still going on after
March 1994…it is not my perogative to pass the liability for the
demolition of your wall onto another party…I accept that I have
access to files and records that you do not…those same files and
records can throw no further light on the matter…this Association
is not responsible…I notice what appears to be…a newly built pier
attached to your wall or an old pier that has been repointed…I
would question who constructed or repointed the brick pier…my
records clearly indicate that Maritime were not responsible Sefton,
as our agents, are responsible for controlling building operations
on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still
taking place up till September 1994. Which had nothing to do with
Maritime. In accepting the dates for demolition span a 3 month
period…”

Maritimes letter of September 28th 1999 was in response to my
letter to them dated September 20th 1999 (bold added), which
stated:

“Since I last wrote to you I have received from Fawley the date the
photographs of my gable end were taken as 14/9/94, as this is after
the first week in September 1994 given by Fawley as the date
building operations began, it is clear that the photographs were
not taken "prior to redevelopment" as stated by you in your letter
dated 15/6/99 and as such have no value except to prove that the
wall had been demolished by that date. You have also stated that
the nib wall was not in existence after "extensive enquiries" with
both your staff and builders when you took possession of the site
(14/3/94) this has proven not to be the case evidenced by
photographs taken by Sefton Council in July 1994. I have had a
letter from Mr Barr of Sefton Council dated 12/10/99 who states "my
records indicate that the date of contract completion work was 31st
March 1994". In your letter of 5/10/99 you state "demolition was
still taking place up 'til September 1994, which had nothing to do
with Maritime". In your letter of 4/3/99 you state "this
Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition
by Sefton Council". In the light of the above are you saying that
after you took possession of a cleared site in March 1994 further
demolition took place up until September 1994 and specifically
between July 1994 when the nib wall was photographed by Sefton and
14th September 1994 when it had been demolished even though you
know of the demolition you don't know who demolished what, or why,
and it had nothing to do with Maritime or Sefton who on 28/9/99 you
state up until September 1994, as far as you are aware, the site
was under the control of and who at the time between July and
September 1994 were not acting on behalf of this association.”

Clearly this “3 month period” period differs from the six-month –
March to September – period that Judge Fitzgerald found for the
demolition of the nib wall. Nor does it correspond with the
enclosed version of events sent to me on August 8th 2001 by Sefton
Council’s Ms Swale, nor does it correspond with the enclosed letter
from GTB Demolition Ltd dated September 13th 2000 averring the nib
wall was in situ on April 21st 1994, and most certainly does not
correspond with any demolition after April 21st 1994 as by then
demolition was supposedly completed: You should also note that the
statement by Maritime that Sefton controlled their contractors
“building operations” is unfounded, as is the comment in paragraph
one on page two (bold added) that:

“I can find no record or evidence of who demolished your wall.”

As the nib wall did not belong to me but to Maritime and is
evidently the wall referred to by Judge Fitzgerald as being
demolished between March and September 1994 in concert with
Maritime. No wonder the Defendant solicitors have requested that
Judge Fitzgerald hear their application in claim 6LV50690 on
December 13th 2007.

On October 22nd 1999 Maritime wrote me the enclosed letter in
response to a letter written to them by myself on October 21st 1999
(bold added), which stated:

“By now you should have had my letter of yesterday and I hope for a
reply as clear as the one relating to building operations and
photographs, to recap. I wish to know not when Fawley Construction
commenced building operations but when they first moved onto the
site to erect fencing and have materials delivered, both of which
are evident on their photographs of my gable end, unless this was
done between the 12th and 14th September. To answer your Question
about my residency, yes I was in residency during July to September
and if you care to tell me the day the nib wall was demolished I
may be able to tell you what I was doing that day but am unable to
account for every day during that period. If I had been home on
that day you are correct to assume I could have ascertained who
demolished the nib wall. By the nature of your questions you seem
to accept that the nib wall was demolished between the taking of
the photographs by Sefton Council and Fawley Construction which
brings the time period down to about ten weeks, even less it you
take into account the photocopy I sent you, taken as it was after
the ones taken by Sefton Council, do you agree.”

I also refer you to the enclosed correspondence with Ms Swale of
Sefton Council dated June 19th and July 4th 2001 and further
correspondence regarding her averment on August 8th 2001 – copied
to Royal & SunAlliance – dated; 6th and 31st August 2001, 1st, and
22nd October 2001: and her response’s dated; October 18th and 22nd
2001. NB Ms Swales signature is pp the Councils Finance Director Mr
Yates and there are two versions of it.

Finally I most particularly refer you to two without prejudice
letters between Maritime’s CEO and myself dated July 9th and 11th
2001respectively which were copied to Maritime’s solicitor Mr
Hayhurst at Bell Lamb & Joynson and, who subsequently, seemingly as
the senior partner of 147 Law, Maritimes solicitors and, with the
knowledge or constructive knowledge of the above, refused on
Maritimes behalf to enter into ADR with me.

I also enclose evidence that from November 25th 2005 the court knew
I was returning correspondence from the Defendant solicitor to him
regarding CPR 23PD.11.1 filed on; November 29th 2005, December 6th
and 8th 2005, January 4th 11th and 26th 2006: yet did not send me
any filed documents or applications from the Defendant solicitor.

This letter will filed at Liverpool County Court FAO Judge
Fitzgerald and be copied to Howarth Goodman to utterly refute any
locus standi they have in the matter, and to Bell Lamb & Joynson.

Dated December 3rd 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

S.68

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

s. 69.

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

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

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

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

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

s. 74:--

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

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

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

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

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

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

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

Schedule 3 Part I

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear 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 FOLLOWING FOI REQUEST REGARDING CONTRADICTORY
INFORMATION HELD ON THE COURT COMPUTER WHICH DIFFERS FROM HARD COPY
INFORMATION HELD IN HARD COPY FORM BY THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.

FOI THE COURT MANAGER - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

THIRD REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF RECORDS

I refer you to the two attached requests for verification of the
court filed record under the Freedom of Information Act filed on
May 31st 2006 and April 27th 2007.

This request will be copied to:

The Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chief Justice

The Attorney General

Dated February 24th 2009

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson