First Allegation of Vexation by myself ... Alteration of the date of a Fraudulent Insurance Claim W215732 dated 1993, to 1995

Dear Richard Roscoe

Will you confirm or deny the first allegation of my vexation
appears in a perjured statement by the Councils Legal Director to
the court dated July 21st 2004 regarding the date of claim W215732.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear RICHARD ROSCOE

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

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

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

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

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

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

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

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

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe
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 Sir or Madam,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW.

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

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

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

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

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further, with another twist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW.

FOR INFORMATION:
KNOWLEDGE

The vendor of land must show to the purchaser a good unencumbered
title, which the purchaser does not need to investigate before a
binding contract is made.

If the land is unregistered the vendor must show and verify good
title to his land by way of an abstract, which summarises all the
documentary evidence regarding the land and all deaths, if any,
that have affected the transfer of the land.

The purchaser, or his solicitor, then examines the abstract to
satisfy himself that the property described in the abstract matches
the property his client is to purchase, and advises him to continue
with the purchase.

Such an abstract was produced in the sale to Crosby Council of 21
Lime Grove and, states the following – text modified:

“Land situated on the north side of Lime Grove…bounded on the west
by the detached dwellinghouse and Premises then or lately belonging
to Mr Bentley on the east side by the property belonging to the
said Arthur Woods and on the North by the middle of a common
passage measuring in front to lime Grove134 feet 9 inches or
thereabout and at the back along the middle of the said common
passage 135feet 2 inches or thereabout running in depth backwards
or the East and West sides severally 60 feet or thereabout.
Together with 9 dwellinghouses thereon erected and being the odd
numbers 3 to 19 inclusive”.

This abstract must have been in the possession of both Sefton and
Maritime when the land was sold in 1993 and was most certainly in
the possession of the Land Registry.

Therefore it is not possible, for anyone in possession of, or
knowing the contents of the above abstract to adduce any evidence,
record or document or map or, hold or rely on or, be able to prove,
any misunderstanding or any true belief that 19 and 21 Lime Grove
were ever adjoined or attached to each other by a party wall.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RICHARD ROSCOE

HOW DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF VEXATION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME
BELOW, APPLY TO ME ?

Heard on the papers at Procession House, London, EC4

1. On the 4 January 2002 a member of staff from Jobcentre Plus in
Dudley (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) was responding to a question about benefits received by Mrs
Hossack. The question was from solicitors handling a personal
injury claim involving Mrs Hossack. In the course of the call, the
member of staff disclosed that Mr Hossack was receiving benefits.
That disclosure was unauthorised and a breach of the Data
Protection Act.

2. Mr Hossack has been campaigning about that breach ever since.
The Department have investigated the breach, a number of times,
have admitted it, accepted responsibility for it, apologised for
it, and paid compensation to Mr Hossack for it. During the course
of his campaign, Mr Hossack has twice had the breach investigated
by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Administration (the
Ombudsman), whose recommendations the DWP have accepted and acted
upon.

3. Mr Hossack remains dissatisfied. He has engaged three firms of
solicitors at various times to act on his behalf. He has taken
counsel’s opinion. He has repeatedly threatened legal action,
though none has resulted. He has campaigned publicly, naming
individual members of DWP staff, accusing them of a variety of
criminal acts including corruption and fraud. He has leafleted
locally setting out his allegations; he has towed a trailer with
posters advertising his allegations around the town. More recently,
he has set up a website to publicise his allegations. The request
for information

4. Over the years, Mr Hossack has made many requests for
information to the Department, which have been answered to a
greater or lesser extent during the various inquiries and
voluminous correspondence generated by his campaign. One particular
issue that has concerned Mr Hossack is the identity of the employee
who made the disclosure (though in more recent correspondence to
the Tribunal, Mr Hossack asserts that he now knows the name, and in
any event is not – and never has been - interested in the identity
of the individual.)

5. One particular letter from Mr Hossack, of 12 March 2006 made
specific reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
requested “copies of the XXXX enquiry and YYYY enquiry
information”. These are two employees of the DWP who had
investigated Mr Hossack’s complaint in its early stages.

6. That request was refused on 11 May 2006 on the grounds that it
was vexatious and could therefore be refused within section 14 of
FOIA.

The complaint to the Information Commissioner

7. Mr Hossack complained about that refusal to the Information
Commissioner (IC). As part of its response to the Commissioner’s
investigation, the DWP prepared a lengthy account of the history of
the various complaints and correspondence, setting out their
analysis of why the current request should be treated as vexatious.

8. The Commissioner’s investigation was understandably protracted.
The Decision Notice, issued on 13 March 2007, found that “the
request was correctly refused as vexatious”, though it noted that
the DWP’s response had been given outside the 20 day time limit set
by the Act. No remedial action was required. The appeal to the
Tribunal

9. Mr Hossack appealed against the Decision Notice on 27 March
2007, on the ground that the Commissioner was wrong to describe his
request as vexatious. The DWP was joined as a party and directions
were given. The questions for the Tribunal

10. The legal framework is simple. Section 14 of FOIA states: (1)
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

11. The Act does not define vexatious further. The Information
Commissioner has published Awareness Guidance notes, no 22 of which
deals with vexatious and repeated requests. We found that a helpful
framework, though it is not of course binding on us. The DWP
referred us to a number of decisions dealing with vexatious in
different statutory contexts, including costs awards and vexatious
litigants. We found these interesting but not directly helpful. We
accept the DWP’s point that the consequences of a finding that a
request for information is vexatious are much less serious than a
finding of vexatious conduct in these other contexts, and therefore
the threshold for a request to be found vexatious need not be set
too high. Our context is different; and, as the IC points out in
his Guidance, it is the character of the request, which must be
considered, not the party.

12. That raises the question of how far the request must be
considered in its own terms, and how far it can be considered in
context. On its own, there is nothing in the wording or nature of
the request to suggest it could be vexatious. But there is no
reason to restrict consideration to what appears on the face of the
request, and it would be artificial to do so. Clearly, context and
history are important. To decide whether a request is vexatious
must include, for example, the effect on the recipient, and may
vary depending on who the recipient is, and when the request is
made.

13. We found the previous decision of the Information Tribunal in
Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner and London
Metropolitan University, EA/2006/0070 helpful. They considered a
number of factors in deciding that that request was vexatious:

i. There is no statutory definition for the term vexatious and its
normal use is to describe activity that is likely to cause distress
or irritation, literally to vex a person to whom it is directed.

ii. The fact that several of the questions purported to seek
information, which the Appellant clearly already possessed, and the
detailed content of which had previously been debated with the
University.

iii. The tendentious language adopted in several of the questions,
demonstrating that the Appellant’s purpose was to argue and even
harangue the University and certain of its employees and not really
to obtain information that he did not already possess.

iv. The background history between the Appellant and the University
... and the fact that the request, viewed as a whole, appeared to
us to be intended simply to reopen issues which had been disputed
several times before. Several of these factors are present in the
current appeal. We would add to the first factor that for the
request to be vexatious there must be no proper or justified cause
for it. A parking ticket may be likely to cause distress or
irritation and may vex the motorist who receives it, but, if
properly issued, should not be described as vexatious.

Evidence

14. This appeal was decided without an oral hearing. The parties
presented their evidence and submissions to us in writing. We do
not propose to set out the evidence in any detail, but having
considered all of it, we make the following findings.

15. Mr Hossack has already in one way or another during his lengthy
correspondence and the previous enquiries received the bulk, if not
all, of the information he now requests. We noted above for
example, his own statement that he now knows the name of the
employee who made the original wrongful disclosure.

16. The Department does not know with certainty who made that
disclosure, but on the evidence available, it is clear that the
identity of the individual has been known, on a balance of
probability, since soon after the first enquiries were made.

17. The Department’s initial responses to Mr Hossack were
misleading. They gave the impression that the employee involved
could not be identified. Moreover, they implied that full enquiries
had been made, when the third party, the firm of solicitors to whom
the disclosure had been made, had not been contacted.

18. Those matters were investigated and ruled on by the Ombudsman.
It was that second report, in February 2005, that lead to the
Department’s second compensation payment, making a total of £150.
We endorse the Ombudsman’s observation that “Jobcentre Plus [the
Department] could have handled your complaint better”.

19. We quote one or two examples of Mr Hossack’s correspondence,
almost at random, to give an indication of Mr Hossack’s approach:
from a letter to the Director of Jobcentre Plus, 1 April 2004: “I
have no intention at all of terminating any communication with the
Dudley Job Centre plus office, and intend to make further factual
comments in writing and verbal form. This to include leaflets given
out with the corrupt officers’ names upon them outside Job Centre
Plus on random days.” From a letter of 12 December 2005 “sent to
the list of government bodies who have become involved in this
saga.”: “My intension [sic] will also be to bring the complaint
back to local levels by naming and shaming the corrupt fraudulent
officers in my local DWP department being [two names are given] and
the corrupt data protection officer...”. Consideration and
Conclusion

20. Mr Hossack has been unwilling to let the matter rest, after the
second Ombudsman’s report, despite no new matters of any
significance having come to light since. He has relentlessly
pursued different members of the DWP staff with correspondence,
scattering his allegations of corruption broadly, and publicising
them vigorously both in the immediate locality and, through his
website, to the world. In his submission to us, Mr Hossack
explained his understanding of fraud: ”to give or provide
information that is untrue”. In this view of the world, every error
is fraudulent; and it is noticeable that Mr Hossack does not
attribute a motive, let alone any question of personal or financial
gain, to the employee who made the original disclosure, or those
who subsequently investigated it.

21. A recurrent feature of the correspondence are threats of
imminent legal action from Mr Hossack, often directed to
individuals, and couched in formal legal terms. Mr Hossack
explained to us that he meant nothing by this: “This I believe to
be a mere tool to get a response and that the threat is nothing
more than subliminal”. Another recurrent feature is the repetition
of increasing statements of financial loss which Mr Hossack
attributes to the Department’s actions in some way, rather than to
his own needlessly protracted campaign. At times Mr Hossack states
that he intends to sue to recover this money; at others, he denies
any question of financial interest.

22. Just as, over the years, Mr Hossack’s financial claims have
mounted, so has his deluded sense of the importance of the issues
at stake. For example, in a letter of 12 October 2006 to the IC’s
office: “I am afraid the matter has gone beyond the recognisable
simple mistake that was made.... . The matter concerned has now
become a matter of breach of convention of human rights Act under
loss of liberty as it is quite clear from information gained that
the conspiracy between the Ombudsman, DWP and Job Centre Plus
continues with unforgivable deceit, lies, fraud and corruption.” In
our view, far from a campaigner for truth and justice on behalf of
the public, as Mr Hossack portrays himself, he is more correctly
described as pursuing an unreasonable obsession.

23. Against that background, is Mr Hossack’s request for the
information contained in the two internal investigations vexatious?
Applying the second, third and fourth factors considered by the
Tribunal in the case of Ahilathirunayagam: (ii) Previous possession
of the information: Mr Hossack already had the substance of the 2
reports, and has debated their detailed content with the
department. (iii) Tendentious language: Mr Hossack’s request is
expressed neutrally, but the language of many of his past
communications has been tendentious, aggressive, threatening and
abusive. His purpose has been to harangue the department and its
employees, not to seek information he did not already possess. (iv)
Reopening issues: Mr Hossack endlessly wishes to debate the
circumstances of that original disclosure, each time magnifying its
importance and effects.

24. If we hesitate at all in describing the request as vexatious,
it is only because when considering the first factor, we have added
the qualification that the distress caused must be unjustified: (i)
activity that is likely to cause, without justification or proper
cause, distress or irritation: there is no doubt that Mr Hossack’s
request caused distress and irritation, but in the early stages at
least, Mr Hossack’s campaign was fuelled by the Department’s
initial misleading replies. In Mr Hossack’s view, this provides a
full justification for his subsequent and current allegation of a
corrupt cover up.

25. We reject that view. Whatever cause or justification Mr Hossack
may have had for his campaign initially, cannot begin to justify
pursuing it to the lengths he has now gone to. To continue the
campaign beyond the Ombudsman’s second report, when his complaint
had been exhaustively and externally investigated, and once the
Department had accepted the errors, apologised for them and paid
compensation, is completely unjustified and disproportionate.

26. We say that not just because of the wounding and intemperate
language which Mr Hossack uses on occasion, or the volume of his
correspondence, but because the original breach of the Data
Protection Act has lead to no discernible detrimental effects for
Mr Hossack. His privacy was certainly infringed, but he has
suffered no material loss, and has been appropriately compensated
for the invasion of privacy; and to the extent that the breach has
been publicised, that is entirely his own doing. (We have no
jurisdiction over matters of compensation, but we are not surprised
that the Ombudsman thought the relatively small sum of £150 was
appropriate.)

27. Seen in context, we have no hesitation in declaring Mr
Hossack’s request, in January 2007, vexatious. The Information
Commissioner was correct in reaching that conclusion in the
decision notice, which we uphold.

Costs

28. During the course of the appeal, Mr Hossack applied for costs
against the DWP and the IC; and the DWP applied against Mr Hossack.
The IC seeks no award. The Tribunal’s powers to award costs are set
out in Rule 29 of the Tribunal’s Enforcement Appeals rules 2005:

(1) In any appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make an
order awarding costs –

(a) Against the appellant and in favour of the Commissioner where
it considers the appeal was manifestly unreasonable;

(b) Against the Commissioner and in favour of the appellant where
it considers that the disputed decision was manifestly
unreasonable;

(c) Where it considers that a party has been responsible for
frivolous, vexatious, improper or unreasonable action, or for any
failure to comply with a direction or any delay which with due
diligence could have been avoided, against that party and in favour
of any other.

29. We take (c), the only appropriate provision for an award of
costs between the appellant and the third party, to be restricted
to action during these appeal proceedings. We have no jurisdiction
to award costs because of a party’s previous frivolous, vexatious,
improper or unreasonable action. Our finding that Mr Hossack’s
request was vexatious has no bearing on consideration of costs.

30. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the IC is groundless and
is dismissed without further consideration. His claim against the
DWP (for £200,000 incurred since 2001) is based on various grounds,
most of them outside our jurisdiction. In a minor respect, the DWP
failed to comply with Directions from the Tribunal for exchange of
documents and submissions missing a deadline by some days. Even if
we were satisfied that with due diligence this could have been
avoided (and we are not so satisfied, having regard to the
explanation provided), we would not have awarded costs for a minor
breach which has had no bearing on the overall fairness of the
process and has not affected the other parties’ ability to present
their case. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the DWP is
dismissed.

31. The DWP claim their solicitors’ costs in conducting the appeal,
some £11,680, excluding counsel’s costs. The DWP argues that
because Mr Hossack’s request was vexatious, “it follows that this
appeal is also vexatious, improper or unreasonable”. As set out
above, we reject the suggestion that the character of the request
determines the character of the appeal. It is easy to see
situations where the Tribunal may find a request vexatious, but
does so only on balance, after anxious consideration. In such a
case, an appeal could not be said to be vexatious or unreasonable.
This is not such a case; given the history and context, the request
is clearly vexatious; “the Commissioner’s decision was manifestly
correct” as the DWP argue.

32. That finding might ground an award of costs in favour of the
Commissioner under Rule 29(1)(a) on the basis that the appeal was
manifestly unreasonable, but the Commissioner seeks no such award.
It is unclear whether Rule 29(3) allows us to award the costs of an
appeal to a third party on the grounds that the appeal itself was
manifestly unreasonable, as opposed to action within the appeal.
However, even if we decided that point in the DWP’s favour, a costs
award would be discretionary, not automatic (“the tribunal may make
an order awarding costs”).

33. In exercising our discretion, we take into account that in
appeals to the Tribunal costs are the exception, not the norm. It
is important that the public should not be deterred by the threat
of costs from approaching the Tribunal. Secondly, FOIA is new law.
The definition of a vexatious request is still unsettled: we have
not, for example, adopted the IC’s definition in his Guidance Note,
though we reach the same conclusion. We have found the request
clearly vexatious, but only after considering context and history.
On its face, it is a reasonable request.

34. Thirdly, considering the facts of this particular case, there
is our finding that the DWP’s initial replies to Mr Hossack were
misleading. We do not say that that justifies his subsequent
campaign, but it does mean that the DWP are not the entirely
innocent victims of a misguided appeal. At least initially, they
contributed to the force of Mr Hossack’s campaign.

35. Fourthly, there is nothing in Mr Hossack’s conduct of the
appeal proceedings which would give rise to any award, at least
until the later stages. His submissions repeat his misguided
allegations of corruption against the DWP, but that is part and
parcel of his case.

36. However, in the final stages of the appeal, he makes an
unpleasant and personal attack on the conduct and integrity of the
solicitor conducting the case for the DWP: for example, in the
“Conclusion” submitted on 4 November 2007. Allowing for the stress
of litigation, and the irritation no doubt caused by the DWP’s
missed deadlines, this is an improper way to conduct the action.

37. Even so, considering the first four factors above, we have
decided against a costs award. However, Mr Hossack should be aware
that he has escaped an award on this occasion by the narrowest of
margins, and he may not find another Tribunal, should he pursue a
comparable appeal again, as accommodating.

38. Our decision is unanimous.

Signed Humphrey Forrest Deputy Chairman Date 18th December 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear RICHARD ROSCOE

FOR INFORMATION:

COVERT MEANS SECRET OR HIDDEN.

OVERT MEANS OPEN.

RECIPIENT MEANS SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES SOMETHING.

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2002:

May 7 – 14 – 22

July 15

August 6 - 22

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

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

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

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

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2004:

March 3

April 8 – 14

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

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

June 4

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

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