Meeting with Sefton Council regarding my DPA subject request dated 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that an officer of the IC met with Mr
Roscoe of Sefton Council in March / April 2004 to discuss my DPA
subject request

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

DEAR SIR OR MADAM

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: MY FOI REQUEST:

I FIRST REFER YOU TO THE LETTER BELOW I WROTE TO MRS THOMAS, THE
LGO ON JULY 9TH 2001

YOUR REF: 00/c/17558/pat 3/am

I refer you to a letter from Mr Oxley to myself dated 23/2/01 in
which he summarised my complaint against SMBC as

"that the Council issued a claim to its insurers without your
knowledge or permission"

I refer you to my reply dated 27/3/01 which corrects this
summarisation and states the complaint to be that the Council
issued a claim to their insurers based on information they knew to
be false.

The information that I had issued a complaint to the Council as
summarised by Mr Oxley on 23/2/01 was forwarded to the Council.
The
Council responded to that complaint , not my actual complaint.

It appears that the complaint I am really pursuing has not been
addressed despite the many references to it in the correspondence
to your office reproduced below.

10/11/00 + 18/12/00 There is now another issue that I wish to make
a complaint about, this is that the Council have issued a 'claim'
or 'potential claim' to their insurers in regard to my property,
based on information known by then to be false.

28/12/00 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th
December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond to my
further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---Will you please inform
me if you are treating my complaint to you that Sefton MBC have
acted incorrectly by issuing an improper insurance claim,
allegedly
from me, based on information they know to be untrue.

6/2/01 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th and
28th December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond
to
my further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---

Will you please inform me if you are treating my complaint to you
that Sefton MBC have acted incorrectly by issuing an improper
insurance claim, allegedly from me, based on information they know
to be untrue, as a matter of maladministration.---

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. 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

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.

23/2/01 The Council as far as I can establish have no liability in
regard to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If
this is the case it follows that they have issued false
information
to myself and their insurers.

1/3/01 The Council as far as I can establish, based on ownership
and possession by others, have no liability or indemnity in regard
to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If this is
the case it follows that they have issued false information to
myself and their insurers the purpose of which appears to
constitute maladministration and an attempt to cover up
wrongdoing.
It also means that indemnity would not be provided to me (if
claimed) by their insurers.

Will you please keep me informed of what the Councils response to
my complaint is and give me the opportunity to check their
response
with evidence I possess?

28/3/01 I do feel there are things in SMBC's letter to you that are
incorrect and require clarification but they may become academic
if
the period of SMBC's legal liability and indemnity does not extend
beyond 14/3/94 when the developer who was also the site owner,
took
possession. My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their
insurers about damage to my property which contained information
known to SMBC, at the time they issued these claims, to be untrue
and that they did this with the knowledge that they had no legal
liability to do so on either one or both of the occasions they did
so.

Clearly my complaint that the Council issued a claim based on
information known to them to be false at the time they issued the
claim has not been addressed. Do you intend to do so ?

I also refer you to Mr Oxleys statement in his letter to me dated
11/4/01 that "It is also a matter for the insurers to decide
whether any time limitation applies to your claim".

This statement is factually and legally incorrect on the basis that
the claim referred to was issued on the false information that it
was for damage caused to my property for which the Council had no
liability for and was allegedly linked to a previously false claim
for unspecified damage to my property.

You are of course aware that status barring is statute law and as
such cannot be affected by an insurance company, this is in fact
confirmed by the insurers themselves.

The fact that the Council assert they had no involvement with the
site concerned after 1/4/94 means that the alleged claim made by
myself for damage occurring after 21/4/94 was a false claim.

The assertion that ownership of the land was stated by the Council
to be unknown to the Council on 30th June 2000 is unlikely, the
ensuing claim by the Council to their insurers could not have been
made if the ownership on the land was not theirs as liability goes
with the ownership of the land. As you and the Council know.

It appears that the claim was issued either with the knowledge that
the land was not owned by the Council or that the claim was made
without the ownership of the land being established or that the
Council did in fact own the land.

The matter of ownership of the land, with regard to compensation,
was first raised on 31st May 2000 by the surveyor who conducted a
survey at my property on 19th May 2000. The Council then wrote to
me on 30th June 2000 to assert the ownership of the land was not
known to them. The Council had at that time, had a month to
ascertain the ownership of the land and yet had not done so,
implying they did not know that the land had been owned by
Maritime
Housing since 21st January 1994. The knowledge of ownership would
have also made a claim to their insurers impossible as liability
goes with ownership.

On 3rd October 2000 I wrote to the Land Registry requesting details
of ownership of the land concerned. On 6th October 2001 I received
the information that since 21st January 1994 the land had been in
the ownership of Maritime Housing.

The tactic employed by the Council is to ignore facts and
information supplied by myself, this tactic, it appears, is being
employed by your office as there seems to be no credibility given
to my complaint that the Council have and still are lying to me.
Nor is the fact that you clearly avoid revealing that the Council
have not provided the information that they were not liable or
insured for any damage to my property occurring after 14th March
1994 which is proven to be the period when damage occurred. To do
this you are ignoring the law, which I assert is irrational.

The Council asserted that I was told to write my letter of
complaint to them to re-open an insurance claim and this would
suspend time limitation. If this were true time limitation would
have been suspended. After consultation with the insurance section
of the Council Mr Williams stated that time limitation would be
decided by the insurers. The insurers state time limitation is a
matter for the courts. Is it credible that Mr Oxley and yourself
do
not know about time limitation ? With respect, I think not.

I refute the assertion that the letter I wrote to the Council
on18th April 2000 was a claim, it was written as a complaint as
the
result of being told by Mr Williams it would stop lime limitation.

I ask you to respond to all the above facts and explain why you
have not taken them into consideration before rejecting my
complaint.

THEN:

In March 2003 I obtained my personal data from Sefton Council which
revealed to me the basis of the fraudulent "Insurance Claim" I had
supposedly made against the Council in 1993 referenced W215732 and
its alleged "reopening of claim RR98XN dated April 18th 2000
which,
has been the subject of Sefton Council's letter to the Ombudsman
on
March 15th 2001, Clearly the situation had changed and I wanted
the
Ombudsmans decision reversed. I had enlisted my MP's help in this
matter and he had contacted the Ombudsman on my behalf:

ON JUNE 24TH 2003, MRS BELLWOOD OF YOUR OFFICE WROTE TO ME
REGARDING A "FURTHER COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL"...and stating ...WE NEED INFORMATION TO HELP US ACHIEVE
THIS."

I NOW REFER YOU TO A FURTHER LETTERS TO MR BARHAM AT YOUR OFFICE
REGARDING THE OMBUDSMANS DECISION ABOUT SEFTON COUNCIL'S
"INSURANCE
CLAIMS":

Letter to Mr Barham dated June 26th 2003:

Your Ref:03/C/04380/PIB

Probably in 1993 or 1994 Sefton MBC (SMBC) invented a claim against
themselves and credited it to myself. This claim was referenced
W215732.

In October 1999 I became aware of this claim when Maritime Housing
Association told me that SMBC had informed them that I had made
this claim in 1993. This claim was declared by SMBC to have been
for damage to my gable wall. When I challenged this assertion SMBC
refuted it by declaring that it was legitimate information
supplied
to Maritime under a contractual agreement and that it had been
supplied to them in "good faith."

On obtaining my data via the IC in March this year I discovered
that this claim is declared to be for damage to my property -
especially the gable wall - caused by the demolition of 21 Lime
Grove which SMBC declare was adjoined to my property at the time
it
was demolished in the 1960's.

As you see from the OS map I have sent you 21 Lime Grove was a
detached house and never adjoined number 19. My wife and I
purchased 19 Lime Grove in 1972 when 21 Lime Grove had been
demolished and maisonettes built in its place.

I ask that you have claim W215732 investigated and inform me of the
result as a matter of urgency, given the clear evidence that it
could not exist.

Letter to Mr Barham June 26th 2003

I refer to your telephone call on July 7th 2002.

Due to the long standing and serious nature of my compliant I do
not consider it appropriate to discuss it by telephone.

This matter requires that all the parties understand what has been
said to whom and, I must stress to you that part of the problem is
that in the past the lack of written confirmation has allowed this
matter to be manipulated by Sefton Council and others.

I regret this situation has arisen but had the matter been fully
investigated in the past, this would not be the case.

ON JULY 11TH 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON...HAS BEEN PASSED TO ME...I HAVE
SEEN A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE OMBUDSMAN TO MR J BENTON MP DATED
29 JANUARY 2002IN WHICH SHE SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN DECIDED NOT TO
INVESTIGATE YOUR COMPLAINT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HAD
PASSED...AND BECAUSE THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
YOU...AS
FAR AS I CAN SEE, THE ISSUES YOU ARE NOW BRINGING TO THE
OMBUDSMANS
ATTENTION APPEARS TO BE TO BE ABOUT THE SAME CONCERNS WHICH THE
OMBUDSMAN CONSIDERED TWO YEARS AGO...YOUR RECENT LETTER DOES NOT
GIVE THE OMBUDSMAN ANY REASON TO BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION INTO A
FURTHER COMPLAINT...I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE SENT MAY
ONLY RECENTLY HAVE COME TO LIGHT BUT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT
THAT YOU COULD HAVE MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE OMBUDSMAN WITHIN THE
NORMAL TWELVE MONTHS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974.
NOR
DOES IT ALTER THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
YOU. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THEREFORE THAT THE OMBUDSMAN HAS REASON TO
OPEN A NEW INVESTIGATION.

AND

July12th 2003:

Thank you for your letter dated 11th July 2003.

SMBC declared that by the demolition of an adjoining building in
the 1960's the former party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove
became the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove. This is untrue.

In October 1999 SMBC declared to Maritime Housing Association that
I had made a claim against SMBC with regard to the damage in 1993,
i.e. damage to my gable wall caused primarily by this demolition
in
the 1960's. This claim is referenced W215732 and is declared by
SMBC to Maritime to be for "cracking and deterioration to my gable
wall." This is untrue.

With regard to claim W215732, SMBC's insurance brokers wrote to me
on August 19th 2002 and declared that claim W215732 was with
regard
to an incident on January 1st 1994. This is untrue.

The misinformation regarding this alleged claim - W215732 - which
was supplied to Maritime by SMBC became the basis of my compliant
to SMBC on November 4th 1999 and to yourselves on January 30th
2000.

Clearly the determination of that complaint by yourselves was based
on deceitful information provided to Maritime and myself by SMBC.
Dated January 1994 - not 1993.

I would also point out to you that as no damage to my property was
caused by claim W215732 dated 1st January 1994, no legal remedy
could have been in existence regarding it.

I request that you copy all the evidence - including that sent
today - I have sent to you since June this year and return the
originals to me.

Enclosed. Maritimes Letter dated October 22nd 1999. Aon's Letter
dated August 19th 2002.

ON JULY 23RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I NOTE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD MADE
AN INSURANCE CLAIM...THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINT I CAN SEE, IS
THAT WHICH THE OMBUDSMAN HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND HAS DECLINED
TO
PURSUE FURTHER...I AM SENDING A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OF SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL TO LET HIM KNOW
THE POSITION."

AND

Mr Barham July 24th 2003

Thank you for your letter dated July 23rd 2003.

I wish to point out to you that your assertion that my complaint
has been dealt with and that the means to resolve it was to take
legal action is incorrect.

My complaint has never been dealt with as I had no knowledge of
claim W215732 until March this year.

SMBC clearly state that this claim was made by myself in 1993.

This is prior to any other alleged claim made by myself regarding
damage to my property on 1994.

Claim W215732 is in no way linked to any further claim as it
regarding alleged demolition in the 1960's which is proven could
have not damaged my property in the manner SMBC declare.

There is no legal action I can take regarding claim W215732 for
there is no damage to my property to claim for, nor any reason for
SMBC to deal with it.

My former solicitors confirm this and therefore your assertion that
my current complaint is "whether you had made an insurance claim"
is in error.

The fact is that I did not , nor could have made a claim regarding
W215732 as W215732 is an invention of SMBC which was then reported
to Maritime Housing Association in February 1999.

I enclose Mr Barrs assertion that primary damage was caused to my
property and is clearly false as is his assertion that my property
was formally mid terrace.

To be clear. I wish to make a complaint that this false claim
W215732 has nothing to support it in fact, and its invention is a
deliberate act of maladminisration, which despite my best efforts
was withheld from me for many years in the furtherance of claim
W215732 to my disadvantage.

Enclosed: Letter to MHA from Barr. Dated February 1999 Letter from
SMBC's CEO date May 1st 2002 Letter to SMBC's Legal Department.
Dated 26 November 2002 RSVP"

ON AUGUST 7TH 2003 MR HOBBS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

"MR BARHAMS LETTER OF 23 JULY GAVE THE REASON WHY THE OMBUDSMANS
DECIDED NOT TO PERUSE YOUR COMPLAINT. I HAVE READ THE PAPERS, AND
SEE NOTHING TO SUGGEST THE DECISION WAS WRONG...THE OMBUDSMAN
REMAINS UNABLE TO HELP YOU AND MR BARHAMS DECISION MUST STAND

On August 7th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed "Our Ref: W215732

Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We would respectfully reiterate that you refer this matter to your
legal advisor."

I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOBBS ON AUGUST 8TH 2003

Thank you for your letter dated August 7th 2003.

I note your position regarding the false claim W215732 and your
evident support of it, will you affirm this is the case.

I regard this as irrational and point out to you that claim W215732
is still being dealt with by SMBC as if it exists, it does not ,
nor ever has.

I request that you return to me all the copies of documents I have
sent to you over the past months and copies of my own letters to
yourselves.

On August 18th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can merely reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisor."

ON AUGUST 26TH 2003 SEFTON COUNCILS FINANCE DIRECTOR (with
constructive knowledge of my letters to the Ombudsman), WROTE (pp
Ms Swale), THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Further your letter dated 14th August 2003 regarding clarification
of claim W215732. I attach photocopies of the letters from your
solicitors dated 26th January 1995 and 29th November 1995 which
clearly state they are making a claim pon your behalf."

On September 1st 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can only reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisors as before."

ON AUGUST 21ST 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED, ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEFTON MBC EMPLOYEES:

"THE ABOVE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY A SENIOR DETECTIVE FROM THIS
AREA...AND OUR FORCE SOLICITOR. IT IS AND WILL REMAIN A CIVIL
MATTER. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY MORE CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU IN
RESPECT OF THIS CASE. THE COUNCIL IN THE FORM OF MR WILLIAMS
(TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR) CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS BEEN DEALING
WITH YOUR CASE AND ACCEPTS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FORMAL CLAIM IN
YOUR NAME. I SUGGEST THAT YOU REFER THE MATTER TO A SOLICITOR AND
THE DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE WILL BE KEPT FOR SIX YEARS PENDING ANY
CIVIL ACTION YOU MAY TAKE."

ON SEPTEMBER 2ND 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOPE AT AON:

As you know from 2 unanswered letters to yourselves dated May 19th
and July 12th 2002, (both copied to Merseyside Police as this
letter will be) several senior members of SMBC, have affirmed to
me
that claim W215732 is a claim made by my solicitors in relation to
a letter from my solicitors dated January 26th 1995 regarding
damage to my property. The damage my solicitors refer to was that
caused by the demolition of the maisonettes at Kepler Street,
Seaforth, Liverpool between March 14th and April 6th 1994 and
notified by me to SMBC on April 6th 1994. This alleged damage was
acknowledged pp by Mr Barr on April 15th 1994 and is affirmed by
both SMBC and Royal & SunAlliance to be the responsibility of
Fawley.

On February 27th 1996 Ms E Smith Senior Claims Officer SMBC
contacted you by Fax regarding claim W215732. She sent you a memo
referenced W215732 sent to her by Mr Barr dated February 27th
1996.

In his memo Mr Barrs affirms that.

"Mr Robinson did not claim that his problems had been caused by
either the demolition or redevelopment contract," and that. "The
problem occurred sometime before either the demolition or
redevelopment contract" and that the problem was related to. "Work
carried out on what was presumably a former party wall and is now
the gable wall of the dwelling."

You formulated a series of questions from and, based on Mr Barrs
memo to be sent to my solicitors

On March 8th 1996 you wrote to Ms Smith in a letter headed, Claim
No W215732 Robinson, and enclosing your proposed reply to my
solicitors - W215732/TSH/BN/lt7 March 20th 1996 - your letter
clearly refers to the alleged damage to my property caused when
the
party wall was transformed into a gable wall -

"the work carried out on what is now the gable wall of 19 Lime
Grove"

- and therefore, claim W215732 is with regard to the alleged
transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove into
a gable wall - which neither Fawley or GTB Demolition Ltd were
involved in as it never occurred - and not the damage caused by
the
demolition of the maisonettes

I formally ask that you confirm claim W215732 was not with regard
to damage to my property caused by the demolition of the
maisonettes at Kepler Street in March 1994 but damage allegedly
caused by the transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21
into a gable wall at some earlier time and, evidently was made in
1993 based on letters I wrote to SMBC at that time. I also request
that you inform me if claim W215732 was a formal claim against
SMBC.

I enclose an OS map of 19 and 21 Lime Grove from the 1960's proving
unequivocally that no such transformation of a party wall into a
gable wall could have occurred, and Mr Barrs affirmation to my
Solicitors dated March 7th 1995 declaring survey information about
this damage (which was, and never could have been taken) indicated
this damage had occurred prior to 1994.

ON SEPTEMBER 3RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER RECEIVED ON 11 AUGUST. WHEN I WROTE TO
YOU ON 23 JULY I SENT YOU COPIES OF ALL THE PAPERS YOU HAD SENT US
SINCE JUNE WHICH WAS YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH US THIS YEAR. I AM
NOW
ENCLOSING COPIES OF ALL THE LETTERS AND OTHER PAPERS YOU HAVE SENT
US SINCE 23 JULY 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2003 IN A LETTER REFERENCED W215732, AON'S MR HOPE
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM AON,S MANCHESTER ADDRESS:

"I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MATTER IS NOW BEING DEALT WITH BY OUR
OFFICE IN SHEFFIELD AND THEY WROTE TO YOU ON 1ST SEPTEMBER 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 5TH 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I HAVE FULLY INVESTIGATED YOUR ALLEGATIONS OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL
CONDUCT BY SEFTON MBC'S EMPLOYEES AFTER OUR MEETING ON 22 JULY.
YOUR ALLEGATIONS SURROUND THE FACT THAT REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY
THEN TO A 'CLAIM' THAT THEY ALLEGE YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST THEM. YOU
DISPUTE EVER HAVING MADE ANY CLAIM. AS A RESULT OF OUR MEETING I
CONTACTED MR WILLIAMS FROM SEFTON MBC. HE INFORMED ME THAT LETTERS
THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN TO THEM HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A CLAIM AGAINST
THEM. I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN THIS
MATTER AND I TELEPHONED YOU THE FOLLOWING DAY AND LEFT A MESSAGE
ON
YOUR ANSAPHONE, AS YOU REQUESTED, TO THAT EFFECT. THIS IS THE END
OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY FURTHER
COMMUNICATION WITH YOU IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER AND I SUGGEST YOU
CONTACT A SOLICITOR IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER ADVICE:

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MRS THOMAS THE LGO:

On December 18th 2000 I wrote the following to you:-

"There is now another issue that I wish to make a complaint about,
this is that the Council have issued a 'claim' or 'potential
claim'
to their insurers in regard to my property, based on information
known by then to be false."

This was acknowledged on December 21st 2000.

This became formal complaint: 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc - then
00/C/17558/CSO/pmc, which was rejected by your office.

The only reason for this rejection - that I was ever informed of -
was contained in a letter, written to Mr Oxley by Sefton Councils
Legal Director, Mr Bownes on March 15th 2001, which I contested,
but was evidently not considered by yourselves, i.e. on March 27th
2001 I wrote the following to Mr Oxley:-

"My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their insurers about
damage to my property which contained information known to SMBC,
at
the time they issued these claims, to be untrue."

Will you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that this letter
from Mr Bownes to Mr Oxley of March 15th 2001, confirming that
these claims had been made, was the only reason for the rejection
of complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc - 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc.

The matter of false claims is now in the hands of the court and I
need to confirm that I have had complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc
rejected on the basis of Mr Bownes letter.

ON OCTOBER 6TH 2003 MRS THOMAS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I CANNOT SEND YOU ANY INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH HAS
ALREADY BEEN SENT TO YOU. NOR CAN I ALLOW ANY MORE OF MY OFFICERS
TIME TO BE SPENT ON THIS MATTER. FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU
MAY NOT RECEIVE A REPLY."

ON OCTOBER 15TH 2003 ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO
'STEVE', AND COPIED TO SEFTON'S MS SMITH UNDER THE REFERENCE'S
W215732 (JANUARY 1ST 1994) AND RR98XN (JANUARY 17TH 1994)."

"I ENCLOSE A COPY OF MR ROBINSONS LATEST LETTER WHICH WE RECENTLY
RECEIVED TOGETHER WITH OUR RESPONSE ON 10 OCTOBER. IN VIEW OF THE
LONG STANDING CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY FURTHER
CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR ROBINSON,"

ON OCTOBER 30TH 2003 MY SOLICITORS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE N MY BEHALF:

"WE WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD CLARIFY WHETHER YOUR
REFERENCE RR98XN, IS IN FACT A REFERENCE TO A CLAIM WHICH ALSO HAS
THE CLAIM NUMBER RR98XN."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 ROYAL 7 SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MY
SOLICITORS:

"in response to your query "W215732" is the reference used by our
insureds brokers, Aon to identify this particular matter. our
reference for the same matter is "RR98XN". there was a previous
reference or claim number that was used in connection with this
matter by ourselves and that was "31/AT01939/96".

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 SEFTONS DATA PROTECTION OFFICER RECEIVED THE
FOLLOWING IN A LETTER TO HER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
REGARDING MY DATA SUBJECT APPLICATION FOR MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
FROM1994 REFERENCED 03_36590/06/AD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO
ME IN MARCH 2003, AD STATED:

"MR ROBINSON HAS ALLEGED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED A COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO HIS SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST///MR ROBINSON CONTENDS THAT
HE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY INFORMATION FROM 1994...MR
HUFF'S...RESPONSE TO MR ROBINSON CONCERNS THAT MISSING INFORMATION
FROM 1994...A NUMBER OF INFERENCES COULD BE TAKEN FROM MR HUFF'S
RESPONSE. THESE INCLUDE:

THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994.

THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED BY
AN EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE DPA.

ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD RELATED TO 1994 IS NOT HELD AS PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

I WOULD BE GRATEFUL, THEREFORE, FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY MR
ROBINSON HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD ABOUT
HIM FROM 1994..I WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDED ME WITH
CLARIFICATION...HE IS ENTITLED TO A RESPONSE WITHIN THE NEXT 28
DAYS."

ON NOVEMBER 26TH 2003 MR BENTON MP WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Correspondence that I have copied to Council Officers was in an
effort to work with them to try to resolve your ongoing
problems...it-is only by copying your letters to the Council that
the gist of your complaints and queries could be adaquatly relayed
to them."

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2003, WITH REGARD TO A COMPLAINT I HAD MADE TO MY
SOLICITORS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE, THEY WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING AN HOUR LONG TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I
HAD
HAD WITH THEM:

"YOU WILL RECALL...I ADVISED YOU TO WRITE TO ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
AND SEFTON REQUESTING CONFIRMATION AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE PREPARED
TO PROVIDED YOU WITH DETAILS OF ANY CLAIM WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT BY YOURSELF AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS...IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 14 DAYS THEN YOU
WOULD ASSUME THAT NO SUCH ACTION EXISTED AND FURTHERMORE YOU WOULD
RELY UPON THOSE LETTERS WHEN ATTENDING BEFORE A DISTRICT JUDGE."

THESE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN AND NO EVIDENCE OF WAS, OR EVER HAS BEEN
PROVIDED BY SEFTON TO JUSTIFY CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993, JANUARY
1ST
AND 17TH 1994 (RR98XN).

ON JANUARY 28TH 2004 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE TO ME, WITH REGARD
TO CLAIM RR98XN DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994, STATING:

"WE HAVE SENT YOU ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION DATA IN NOVEMBER
2003 IT IS THEREFORE THERE IS NO WITHHELD 'DATA' TO SEND TO YOU."

SUBSEQUENTLY BOTH SEFTON (ON MAY 1ST 2002) AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE
(ON AUGUST 7TH 2001) VERIFIED SEFTON CEASED TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY
THEM ON DECEMBER 14TH 1993 WHEN THEY "LOST CONTROL OF THE LAND TO
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION."

ALL THESE FACTS ARE WELL KNOWN TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT SEFTON KNEW IN FEBRUARY 2003:

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR JANUARY 24TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL 1ST FEBRUARY 2003

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS FEBRUARY 8TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTON FEBRUARY 14TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 20TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 22ND 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 26TH 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 5TH 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 6TH 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Ms Elwood Seftons legal Director March 6th 2003

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson

7 January 2009

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

Sorry for the duplication. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:

On October 7th 2004 Mr Gibson, a Sefton Council's Principle Legal
Assistant, wrote the following to the the Liverpool county court
office in claim LV306271:

" I enclose herewith a copy letter received from the Information
Service Director in relation to enquiries being carried out by the
Information Commissioners Office. I would be obliged if you would
place the said letter before the District Judge for the hearing on
the 14th October at 10am."

THIS LETTER STATED"

"Having discussed this case with the Information Commissioners
office, they have agreed in writing that the data sought by the
complainant is not held in a relevant filing system and that it
does not fall under the scope of the Act. they went on to confirm
that Sefton council had discharged its obligations under the Data
Protection Act in respect of the complainants subject access
request and no further action is required. Yours sincerely Doug
Sheen Information Services Director."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, THE IC FIRST SUGGESTED TO SEFTON COUNCIL
THAT THEIR MR HUFFS LETTER TO ME DATED MARCH 27TH 2003 - REGARDING
SOME 700 DOCUMENTS OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994 ALLEGEDLY
HELD IN TWO BOXES IN THE COUNCIL'S INSURANCE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENTS - COULD POSSIBLY HAVE FALLEN UNDER THE FOLLOWING
REASONS NOT TO PROVIDE THEM TO ME UNDER THE DPA:

1. THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994,

2. THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED
BY N EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE APA,

3. ANY PERSONAL DATA RELATING TO 1994 IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT
FILING SYSTEM.

IN AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT DATED JULY 19TH 2004 IN CLAIM LV306271,
THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, MS ELWOOD, STATED THE FOLLOWING TO THE
COURT REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS FROM 1994:

"THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED ARE DOCUMENTS WHICH
THE DEFENDANT SAYS THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ARE BY THEIR
NATURE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS...THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS NOT GOT ARE
PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AND HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A RELATIVE FILING SYSTEM...THE
COUNCIL HAS NEVER PROCESSED ANY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE
CLAIMANT THIS CAN ALSO BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE "DURANT"
CASE...THE COUNCIL IS NOT PREPARED TO SEND COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION...THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS
RULED THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT HOLD A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

THAT "RULING" BY THE COMMISSION THAT MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM
1994 "RUNNING TO 700 DOCUMENTS HELD IN TWO BOXES BY THE COUNCIL"
HAD BEEN "HELD BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM" WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO ME.

Clearly my FOI request is asking a question which falls within the
FOIA that the IC knows the answer to, i.e:

"Will you confirm or deny covert correspondence and meetings
between a data controller and the IC regarding a DPA subject
request, SHOULD BE lawfully disclosed to the Applicant at the time
it is being exchanged."

THEREFORE, YOUR RESPONSE:

"Therefore we are not looking into the complaint which you made to
the Information Commissioner's Office about Sefton Council in 2003
(our reference 03/63590/06/AD) and as we understand it this case is
closed."

IS NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF MY REQUEST AS I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN AN
ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE, AND NOT WITH WHAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT
OF THE IC's COVERT CORRESPONDENCE AND ADVICE TO SEFTON COUNCIL IN
1994,

AS NEITHER SEFTON OR THE IC CAN ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE EVER ANY "700" DOCUMENTS KEPT IN BOXES
BY SEFTON COUNCIL THAT RELATED TO MY PERSONAL INFORMATION WHICH,
WERE "HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO BE PRIVILEGED".

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

ARE YOU REFUSING TO ANSWER MY REQUEST ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

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

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

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

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

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

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

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

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear JOANNE CROWLEY

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 Internal Compliance Team,

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 Sir or Madam,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

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

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

"Will you confirm or deny that an officer of the IC met with Mr
Roscoe of Sefton Council in March / April 2004 to discuss my DPA
subject request"

YOUR RESPONSE:

Whilst there is no record made by the case officer of a meeting
with Sefton Council the file does contain an email from Sefton
Council to the ICO dated 2 April 2004 which states

‘Thank you for a very informative meeting this week’,

it appears however that this email was provided to you on 16
November 2006 in response to a request for information which you
made to the ICO in your letter dated 21 October 2006 (our reference
FOI/486).

I have spoken to Mr Van Damms the case officer who dealt with your
complaint and he does remember meeting with a Mr Roscoe of Sefton
Council around the time which you have referred to. Therefore we
confirm that the ICO did meet with Mr Roscoe of Sefton Council
around March/April 2004 however as explained above we do not hold
any information regarding the content of this meeting.

THE E-MAIL FROM MR ROSCOE TO MR DAMMS ON APRIL 5TH 2004 STATES,
WITH REGARD TO MY 'DATA FROM 1994' THAT:

"All the correspondence held by our insurance people is in a box
with the name of the complainant on the lid. they are in roughly
chronological order and our staff will have to work through in
order to find which documents constitute personal data. is this a
relevant filing system under the Act."

PERHAPS YOU CAN REFRESH MR DAMMS MEMORY FROM THE "FILES" YOU HOLD.

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO SEFTON'S DATA
PROTECTION OFFICER, MS CORRIN:

"Mr Robinson has alleged he has not received a complete response to
his subject access request...Mr Robinson contends that he has not
been provided with any information from 1994. In response to Mr
Robinson's concerns that information was missing from 1994, Mr Huff
simply states that he has received all the correspondence and
information he is entitled to in response to his subject access
request without specifically indicating why Mr Robinson has not
been provided with any information relating to 1994."

ON APRIL 27th 2004, PRESUMABLY AFTER MR DAMMS AND MR ROSCOE HAD
MET, MR ROSCOE WRITES AND COPIES TO SEFTONS INSURANCE AND LEGAL
DEPARTMENT THE FOLLOWING:

"In line with the recent Durant vs FSA decision. the data sought by
your complainant is no longer held as part of a relevant filing
system...I now know that any 'missing data' would be contained in
two large manual box files...in one case over 700 records."

NO SUCH BOXES EXISTED

The reference to my DPA request under 03/36599/06/AD was solely
with regard to Sefton withholding all my personal information from
1994. see how neatly the above fits into the next stage of the
story.

ON MAY 18TH 2004, JUDGE FITZGERALD ORDERED ME TO DISCLOSE THE
DOCUMENTATION I HAD FROM 1994 AND FOR SEFTON TO RESPOND TO THAT
DISCLOSURE.

SEFTON'S RESPONSE TO MY 'DISCLOSURE' CAME IN THE 'SECOND DEFENCE'
OF CLAIM LV306271, ROBINSON V SEFTON, MBC DATED JULY 19TH 2004.
FROM MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, WHO INFORMED THE
COURT, WITH REGARD TO SOME 700 NUMBERED DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED TO ME IN
MARCH 2003 UNDER MY DPA SUBJECT REQUEST: THAT THE COURT HAD
ORDERED:

"The claimant shall notify the Defendant of any Correspondence that
he believes the Defendants have or have had in their possession or
Correspondence between the Defendant or his solicitors prior to
31st December 1994, which the defendants have not already supplied.
the list the Claimant refers to and the numbering relates to
documents was put together by the Council's Data Protection Officer
for the purpose of responding to the Information Commissioner...
the Data Commission has subsequently ruled that the Council does
not hold a relevant filing system and therefore has no obligation
to provide further documentation to the Claimant..in response to
the Claimants list of Documents he has got, not got and total, the
documents he has not got have been held by the Information
Commission not to form part of a relevant filing system and
therefore the Council are not obliged to disclose the
documents...the Information Commission has ruled that the Council
does not hold a relevant filing system and this can also be
determined pursuant to the "Durant" case"

THIS "DEFENCE" WAS COPIED TO THE COMMISSIONS CASE RECEPTION UNIT BY
RECORDED DELIVERY. DK 7190 2634 9GB ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER 2006.

ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006 CATHY HOWKINS, AN IC CASEWORK AND ADVICE
OFFICER WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED END024895 REGARDING:

"Your letter of 5 July 2006...I can only repeat the Information
that Mr Damms, the caseworker who completed this assessment,
provided to you. During our investigation, Sefton MBC confirmed
that the 'missing' documentation (the information that was not
provided to you in response to your subject access 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
relative filing system and therefore you were not entitled to
copies of this information under the Data Protection Act 1998 at
the time of your request [THE TIME OF MY REQUEST BEING FEBRUARY
2003]...you have also noted, 'Neither Sefton or yourselves will
disclose any correspondence that you have had between yourselves
regarding this matter to myself'. I would be grateful if you would
confirm whether you are now requesting copies of the correspondence
between Sefton and this office in respect of your previous
complaint. if you would like copies of the correspondence between
the Council and the Information Commission's office, please put
this in writing to us."

ON OCTOBER 26TH 2006 CHRIS JONES FROM THE IC'S REQUEST TEAM
CONFIRMED IN A LETTER REFERENCED FOI/486 I WAS REQUESTING:

"copies of all the correspondence and, if any, faxes, emails and
telephone conversation records regarding my requests to the
Commission, and also notification of all documents of any
description you have sent or received from Sefton since May 2002."

ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006 CATHY HOWKINS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A
LETTER REFERENCED END0124895 REGARDING MY 'LETTER OF OCTOBER 30TH
2006:

"You begin your letter by referring to 'the numbered documents sent
to yourselves in February 2003 by Sefton MBC...Sefton Council have
never sent us the numbered documents to which you refer...in the
course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of your
personal data. we based the conclusions of our assessment on the
correspondence that both you and Sefton council provided us with
[TWO BOXES CONTAINING 700 DOCUMENTS]...you have provided 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 would
appear the council holds your council records on computer. for the
purpose of the DPA this information is likely to be your personal
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 9TH 2006 CATHY HOWKINS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER
THE REFERENCE END0124895:

"Please refer to my letter of 18 October 2006. we do not intend,
therefore, intend to answer any further queries that you have in
relation to case reference 03 36599/06/AD...I can confirm that we
have now closed this case and that the large volume of documents
that you enclosed with your last letter will be held on file for
information only."

ON NOVEMBER 16TH 2006 FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORKER AND ADVICE
MANAGER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE'S FOI/486 AND
SAR/310 WITH REGARD TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF MY LETTER OF OCTOBER
21ST 2006 WHICH HAD BEEN TREATED AS AN FOI REQUEST:

"Given your letter...was only concerned with matter concerning
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, you referred only to case
reference 03/36599/06 in your letter...we have supplied you with
the communications we exchanged with the Council in relation to
03/36599/06 only

ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006 DEBBIE BLANK, SUBJECT ACCESS CO-ORDINATOR FOR
THE IC WROTE TO ME UNDER REFERENCE DB/SAR310 ACKNOWLEDGING MY
LETTER OF OCTOBER 21ST 2006 Ect. Etc. Ect....

A MONKEY UP A TREE COULD SEE THAT BY NOT PROVIDING ME WITH THE
INFORMATION OF HOW THE IC HAD COME TO "RULE" THE 'DURANT' CASE
RELATED TO MY CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON FOR PROCESSING FRAUDULENT
INSURANCE CLAIMS WITH ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE - REGARDING THE
DEMOLITION OF NONE EXISTENT BUILDINGS - THE CONCEALMENT OF THE
CORRESPONDENCE OF HOW THAT FINDING WAS ARRIVED AT WAS EXTREMELY
DAMAGING TO ME.

IT ROBBED ME OF THE CHANCE TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO THE COURT OF
HOW THE IC HAD MADE ITS "FINDINGS" BASED ON 700 NONE EXISTENT
DOCUMENTS HELD IN TWO NONE EXISTENT BOXES AND

WOULD HAVE WITHOUT DOUBT, PREVENTED ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE FROM USING
THAT SAME FALSE CONTENTION THAT IT TOO DID NOT HOLD A RELATIVE
FILING SYSTEM FOUNDED ON 'DURANT' TO STEAL MY HOME FROM ME WITH ITS
UNFOUNDED COSTS BASED ON THIS CONTENTION.

MR DAMMS AND MR ROSCOE ARE ONLY PIECES IN THE JIGSAW, NEITHER SEEM
TO REALISE THAT THROWING THE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW ACROSS THE ROOM,
DOESN'T ERASE THE PICTURE FROM THE LID OF THE BOX, NOR MAKE
'DURANT' APPLY TO THE IMAGINARY MISSING DOCUMENTS FROM 1994.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson