Discharge of public funding without reason and subsequent payment of solicitors fees

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny a clients public funding can be withdrawn
by the application of the client solicitors for their fees.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

are you saying you do not have enough information to answer my
request?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

Please confirm or deny my request as an answer is now overdue.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

Will you inform me what information you need as I have several
hundred documents in the matter.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Naomi Badu

YOUR DOWNLOAD dated December 12th 2008 STATES THE FOLLOWING:

“I will mention that an application for funding does not itself
generally create a contract between a solicitor and the Commission.
Before April 2000 the solicitor, would apply for funding and
receive payment under the relevant legislation rather than under a
contract. Since April 2000 it has generally been a requirement
that, in order to apply for funding in an individual case, the
solicitors firm or organisation holds a contract with the
Commission to carry out publicly funded work, and payment would be
made under that contract. In either case, an application would
generally be invalid if it is not made on the instructions of the
client.”

WILL YO EXPLAIN HOW THIS RELATES TO OR ANSWERS MY FOI REQUEST WHICH
IS STILL:

"Will you confirm or deny a clients public funding can be withdrawn
by the application of the client solicitors for their fees."

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear NIOMI BADU

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

Some backround:
For your information

FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS AND THE OMBUDSMAN 2001

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

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

THE OMBUDSMAN:

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

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

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

FROM:

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

INTO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c.c. Sharan Bhogal DETR London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMBC cannot alter the law on statute barring.

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

You state I have not suffered loss, I disagree.

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

Why was this done and on what authority.

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

cc Joe Benton MP

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 7TH 2001

Thank you for your letter of 30th May 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

This conviction is the result of obtaining several legal opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JUNE 26TH 2001:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MRS THOMAS JULY 7TH 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON AUGUST 16TH 2001 GTB WROTE TO ME STATING:

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Claim W215732 January 1st 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After I had enquired to Sefton on site about their evident
intention to demolish the screen wall Sefton reduced the screen
wall from some 5 metres long to a 'nib wall' some 1.5 metres long
and built a pier on its end.

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

A letter of instruction:

Preliminary advice from counsel:

A statement from myself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

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

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

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

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further, with another twist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

I am requesting information regarding the commissions rules
governing the expenditure of public money which I trust the
commission does have.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

I WILL POST A REASON FOR MY DISSATISFACTION WITH YOUR RESPONSE
WITHIN THE NEXT TEN DAYS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

YOUR DOWNLOAD, WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDING: STATES.

THIS SECTION APPLIES WHERE FUNDING HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED UNDER
THE CODE CRITERIA. FUNDING MAY BE WITHDRAWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA AND THE CODE PROCEDURE MAY IN PARTICULAR SPECIFY
THE GROUNDS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF EMERGENCY REPRESENTATION.

FUNDING MAY BE WITHDRAWN WHERE THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH FUNDING WAS
ORIGINALLY GRANTED ARE NO LONGER SATISFIED.

FUNDING MAY BE WITHDRAWN WHERE IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR FUNDING TO
CONTINUE IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TAKING INTO THE
INTERESTS OF THE CLIENT, ANY WIDER PUBLIC INTERESTS AND THE
INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGAL FUND.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA, FUNDING MAY BE
WITHDRAWN:

(I) WHERE THE CLIENT HAS DIED;

(II) WHERE THE CLIENT HAS HAD A BANKRUPTCY ORDER MADE AGAINST HIM
OR HER;

(III) ON FINANCIAL GROUNDS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE PROCEDURES AND
REGULATIONS;

(IV) WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CLIENT;

(V) WHERE THE CASE HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF OR ALL WORK AUTHORIZED BY
THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN COMPLETED;

(VI) WHERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE PROCEDURE, IT IS
UNREASONABLE FOR FUNDING TO CONTINUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDUCT OF
THE CLIENT.

GRANT OF FUNDING TO ME

On February 25th 2001 my solicitors applied for legal aid on my
behalf for damage to my property and gable wall caused by the
demolition of an easement provided by a party boundary structure
known as the nib wall that had been protected by estopple.

No notice of this demolition had been given to me and none of the
three possible parties responsible would admit to responsibility
for the damage which, had been quantified in May 2000 by a survey
sanctioned by myself at the written request of Sefton MBC, and
jointly funded by Sefton MBC and Maritime Housing Association.

This matter was, and had been treated by the parties, as a boundary
disputes arising under the Party Wall Act 1996 which states:

If an owner on whom a party structure notice or a counter notice
has been served does not serve a notice indicating his consent to
it within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on
which the party structure notice or counter notice was served, he
shall be deemed to have dissented from the notice and a dispute
shall be deemed to have arisen between the parties. Nothing in this
Act shall authorise any interference with an easement of light or
other easements in or relating to a party wall.

My solicitors were aware of the above survey and outcome.

THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE EXCLUDED SERVICES ARE STATED AS:

1. Services consisting of the provision of help (beyond the
provision of general information about the law and the legal system
and the availability of legal services) in relation to— (c)
boundary disputes,

AS YOU KNOW, USING AN UNSIGNED STATEMENT COMPOSED WITHOUT MY
KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, MY SOLICITORS OBTAINED LEGAL AID ON MY BEHALF
AND THEN SPENT IT OUTSIDE OF THE TERMS OF THE CERTIFICATE AND,
SUBSEQUENTLY HAD TO PAY MOST OF IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT SEE IN YOUR DOWNLOAD ANY ANSWER
TO MY FOI REQUEST.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Legal Services
Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Discharge of public
funding without reason and subsequent payment of solicitors fees'.

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear FOI FOI,

FOR THE ABSENCE OF DOUBT MY FOI REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS:

"Will you confirm or deny a clients public funding can be withdrawn
by the application of the client solicitors for their fees."

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson