Alteration of OS maps by licenceees

fred robinson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Ordnance Survey

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Ordnance Survey of their handling of this request.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that licensees can lawfully combine different OS maps to create maps of none existent land or features on land from two or more different maps.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response acknowledging your email. There is no need
to reply. Our aim is to respond to your enquiry within 10 working days,
or sooner if we can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

Luke Hampson, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 3 November 2008.

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). As your request was received by
us on 3 November we will provide you with a full response within 20
working days as required by the FOIA, meaning by 1 December 2008.

In the meantime, if you have any further questions please contact
Customer Services on: 08456 05 05 05.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Hampson
Customer Complaints Officer
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

Luke Hampson, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson

Ordnance Survey reference: 69574

Thank you for your email dated 3rd November 2008 requesting: Will you
confirm or deny that licensees can lawfully combine different OS maps to
create maps of none existent land or features on land from two or more
different maps.

We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard
to your request. Though technically your request falls within the
'Information accessible to applicant by other means' exemption under
section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), as we have
provided you with the requested information in our letter to you dated
22 January 2007.

In case this information has been misplaced we are pleased to provide
the following information from that letter:

In response to your Fourth question: "Is the combining of OS SJ3396
dated 1967 and 1975 legal?" Fifth question: "Does it infringe the
copyright of these government documents?" Sixth question: "Is this
combined map recognised by yourselves as a legal document?"

We responded that;

Where an individual or organisation has legitimately acquired our
mapping, they are permitted to use, reproduce and alter it within the
terms of their licence as acquired from us. We do not take action
against such use. Where mapping is reproduced in quantity, copyright
permission is required from ourselves. We would normally take action
against an individual or organisation where no such permission is
obtained. Where however, mapping is altered and used for illicit reasons
it becomes a matter for the law.

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of
Information guidelines. To the extent that the public interest (section
17) applies, we have determined that in all the circumstances of the
case, the public interest has been met with the full provision of all
information in this instance.

If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
Appeals Officer at:
Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 4GU

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will
ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any
decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending
disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Tony Gray
Freedom Of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Luke Hampson,

Are you saying that it is lawful for a licensee to alter OS maps as long as that alteration is not used for an unlawful purpose. Can you give me a example of lawful alteration of OS maps. When you use the word lawful, do refer to any particular law.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 20 November 2008.

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). As your request was received by
us on 20 November 2008 we will provide you with a full response within
20 working days as required by the FOIA, meaning by 19 December 2008.

In the meantime, if you have any further questions please contact
customer services: -

Email: [Ordnance Survey request email]
Telephone: 08456 05 05 05

Thank you for your enquiry

Luke Hampson
Customer Complaints Officer
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson

Ordnance Survey reference: 69695

Thank you for your further email dated 20 November 2008 requesting: Is
it lawful for a licensee to alter OS maps as long as that alteration is
not used for an unlawful purpose? Can you give me a example of lawful
alteration of OS maps? When you use the word lawful, do refer to any
particular law?

Please note that as this is a new request, for monitoring purposes under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) we have given this request a new
reference number. Under FOIA we consider the first and third question to
be seeking an opinion which is not a requirement of the legislation,
therefore we are unable to offer any response in these instances.

Whilst the second question is requesting information, it is not a
general requirement that licensees provide examples of how they use our
mapping. Ordnance Survey requires licensees providing higher value
remuneration to provide examples as to how they might use our data for
audit purposes. However there is an expectation on Ordnance Survey that
we will not release this information as there is a possibility that in
doing so a competitor might gain a commercially competitive advantage
over both Ordnance Survey and/or its licensees. Consequently I regret to
inform you that we will not be releasing this information, as your
request falls within the 'Commercial interests' exemption under section
43 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

To the extent that the Public interest is considered (section 17 FOIA),
it is our reasonable opinion that in all the circumstances of the case
that whilst the public interest in releasing the requested information
would meet the requirement that Ordnance Survey as government department
is openly accountable regarding the use of its data by the private
sector, in considering our public interest responsibility to the private
sector we consider that there would be significant risk to theirs and
our financial and operational business models.

Accepting that there is some risk of prejudice in releasing the
requested information, we feel that the public interest is more in
favour of withholding the requested information especially regarding
information entrusted to us by the private sector which indicates their
business use which may severely prejudice their ability to operate
within the commercial geographic information sector. As a result
Ordnance Survey may be inhibited in its ability to licence its data with
regard to those requirements on us to operate fairly and equitably under
the Information Fair Trader Scheme. By maintaining this degree of
'confidentiality' in our relationship with our licensees, we ensure that
we do not prejudice their or our ability to operate competitively by
inadvertently providing highly sensitive information, therefore being
prejudicial to our commercial interest (exemption s 43.2). Consequently
we will not be releasing this information to you.

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of
Information guidelines. If you are unhappy with our response, you may
raise an appeal to our Appeals Officer at:

Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 4GU

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will
ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any
decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending
disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

My request was not a 'new' request it was a response to the introduction of the concept by yourself that the alteration of the Surveys mapping would be censured if it was done for an illegal purpose. That idea suggests that the alteration would not per se be illegal, therefore I asked you to provide an example of a legal alteration of the Surveys maps to support your concept. Also I do not understand how the information I seek has anything to do with commercial interests, severely interfering with any business or audits or, prejudices anybody, will you please clarify how it does.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response acknowledging your email. There is no need
to reply. Our aim is to respond to your enquiry within 10 working days,
or sooner if we can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 26 November 2008 where you requested
information from our Freedom of Information Officer.

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your appeal under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). As your appeal was received by
us on 26 November 2008 we will provide you with a full response within
40 working days as required by the FOIA, meaning by 26 January 2009.

In the meantime, if you have any further questions please contact:

[Ordnance Survey request email]

Thank you for your enquiry.

Luke Hampson
Customer Complaints Officer
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

I have made no appeal, nor do I wish to.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Robinson

Based on the FOIA Section 45 Code of Practice
"38. Any reply from the applicant expressing dissatisfaction with an authority's response to a request for information should be treated as a complaint"

(also known as an Internal Review or appeal)

They have treated your previous email to them as a request for an Internal Review.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Alex Skane

Its not clear what the complaint is that the Survey perceive I am making, it however goes no way toward answering my FOI request regarding the rights of their licensees to forge the surveys maps by alteration.

The survey had copies of its own maps and copies of the forged maps in question, as have several other authorities, including the Police.

The Lord Chancellor sent the forgeries back to me without comment and clearly any 'complaint' about the forged maps needs to be addressed by the Police under the Forgery Act and not the Survey.

With regard to Police action, when I took the evidence to the Police, I was threatened with arrest. My consequent 'complaint to the Home Secretary was greeted with the advice to 'complain' to the Police and three other associated authorities including the ippc, this I did and was ignored by all four.

In essence my request is a simple one that is being needlessly complicated by attempting to treat is as a complaint.

It may be of some significance that one forged map was held by Sefton Councils Planning Department and another has been in the possession of their insurers.

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your response.

In line with your instruction we have withdrawn your request from our
internal appeals process.

Consequently we now consider this matter closed and will not respond to
any further correspondence related to "Alteration of OS maps by
licensees".

Yours sincerely,

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

I will refer you to what you wrote to me on January 22nd 2007, which was:

"Where an individual or organisation has legitimately acquired our mapping, they are permitted to use, reproduce and alter it within the terms of their licence."

Any comment ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

I will refer you to what you wrote to me on January 22nd 2007, which was:

"Where an individual or organisation has legitimately acquired our mapping, they are permitted to use, reproduce and alter it within the terms of their licence."

Any comment ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

A response to my FOI request is overdue despite you withdrawing you self induced internal appeal. Please answer my FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

For the absence of doubt, are you refusing to answer my FOI Request regarding the alteration of OS mapping - copies of which have been sent to you showing precisely what mapping has been altered (forged) and exactly how this was done by providing the Survey with hard copy evidence of the altered mapping and, showing how the forgers used the same cut and paste method as demonstrated, to produce the altered mapping which, cannot compare with any mapping that has been legitimately produced by the Survey.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

I await your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response to this overdue FOI request

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Seasons Greetings from Ordnance Survey

Thank you for your email which has been received by Ordnance Survey.
This is an automatic response confirming receipt of your communication.
Please do not respond.

Please note that our office is closed from 17:30 December 24 - 08:30
January 2 2008

If you have an urgent query about an order placed via our on-line map
shop (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure
<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/leisure/...> ), please e-mail [email address]
<mailto:[email address]> During this period we will
run a limited service to answer urgent order queries only.

Our aim is to provide a full response to all enquiries within a maximum
of 10 working days. We will endeavour to resolve your enquiry as soon as
we possibly can.

If you haven't already done so you may wish to view information
regarding our products and services on our website at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk <http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>

.

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

GOOD MORNING IT IS NOW JANUARY 9TH 2009

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING THE ABOVE INTERNAL REVIEW AND THE USE OF THE SURVEYS MAPPING:

Alleged “Complaints” about titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I SENT A DETAILED LETTER AND ‘CUT AND PASTED’ EVIDENCE OF FORGED LAND REGISTRY MAPPING OF TITLES LA45086, LA43343 AND MS350603 TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND FILED IT AT THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT STATING:

“It is my belief that this matter should be now be properly investigated by either the Police or the Serious Fraud Office as the Land Register is now unreliable.”

ON JULY 10TH 2006 THIS LETTER WAS RESPONDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the report of falsified land records…the Department…has considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have responsibility for the issue raised in your letter…we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of Community Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON JULY 12TH 2006.

ON JULY 24TH 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO THE LAWYERS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ALTERING MY REPORT OF ALLEGED CRIME, TO A COMPLAINT BY STATING:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its remit. One of the teams lawyers will consider your complaint.”

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006 IN A LETTER (ACRT/MS 351603.A.081/DW) HEADED MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE SEAFORTH: THE AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM IN COVENTRY WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND PRESUMABLY THE FILED FORGED CUT AND PASTED MAPS THAT ACCOMPANIED IT:

“Your letter is considered to be a complaint…[the] Land Registry cannot look at a matter or overturn legal decisions made by Land Registry…my understanding from your letter is that your complaint is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some background to the current situation may prove useful…. The boundary you are querying is between your property…and what was formally 21 Lime Grove…the land nor the boundary in question has never been affected by title LA45343…in creating a title plan we are concerned with showing the general boundaries to the extent of the area within the title…the boundary shown on MS351603…is exactly the same as that which was shown on LA45086, that, in turn remains the same from the time of its first registration…title plans may be replaced and updated over the years for various reasons and, because title plans are always prepared on the latest Ordnance Survey detail…Ordnance Survey features will change from time to time depending on when the last edition of the title plan is prepared…I can say that nothing unusual has occurred with regard to either of these registered titles and their mapping…you will appreciate I find no basis for your complaint. This is the Land Registries definitive response to your complaint.”

FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY DENIED THE MAPPING THEY HAD PREPARED WAS FORGED.

ON AUGUST 14TH 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to this Department about structural defects regarding your property…the Department cannot get involved with individual cases or question a possible court decision.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your house. This has been passed to this department because of our responsibility for housing. Your remarks have been noted…I should point out that local authorities are elected autonomous bodies…if you are unhappy with the conduct of the local authority. You may wish to complain via their own complaints procedure…you may wish to take your case to the Local Government Ombudsman.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICES AT HEAD OFFICE, LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your copy letter dated 17 July 2006 to this office. However. I regret that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of Land Registry.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006 SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR. IN A LETTER COPIED TO THE COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT (PAW/RR) WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 3rd August to the Chief Planning Officer…[I] can confirm that the Council will not have provided any information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance Survey plan referred to.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 THE SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“The Council is unable to confirm any details in relation to THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” as requested…I would refer you to the letter of 12th February, 2001 from the Chief Executive Officer confirming that point. As you are aware, Mr George Barr, the Property Manager referred to in Maritime Housing Associations letter of 4th March 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable to take this matter forward.”

ON THE FORGED TRANSFER MAP COMPOSED OF TWO VERSIONS OF OS SJ 3396, DATED 1969/1978 (BOTH OF WHICH SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB”), THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE LAND REGISTRY BY MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION’S SOLICITORS IN 1994, SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” HAD BEEN ERASED FROM THEM BOTH TO CREATE THEIR TRANSFER MAP WHICH, AFTER TAXATION WAS SENT TO THE REGISTRY.

THE “LATEST” OFFICIAL COPY OF OS SJ3396 WAS DATED DECEMBER 13TH 1993 AND SHOWED NO NIB WALL ON IT, NOR DID THE 1987 EDITION. THUS, IN LAW, MARITIME DID NOT BUY A PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE FROM SEFTON COUNCIL AS THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” DID NOT FORM PART OF THEIR AGGREED CONTRACT TO DO SO.

ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY DREW A TITLE MAP COMPRISING OF OS SJ 1969/1984, SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU. THAT TITLE NUMBER IS MS351603

THERE ARE TWO LETTTERS COPIED TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME DATED MARCH 4TH 1999, ONE TO ME AND, ONE REGARDING FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION. I REPRODUCE COMMENTS FROM BOTH BELOW NUMBERED ONE AND 2:

THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE TWO LETTERS TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME AND THE COUNCILS CEO’S LETTER TO ME REFERRED TO ABOVE BY THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR STATE:

1. MARITIME TO ME “You should be aware…this Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton Council. On the evidence I have it would appear…the “nib” wall was removed during the demolition contract”

2. MARITIME TO MR BARR: “I have spoken to Bill Fawley who cannot even recall the nib wall, and therefore, we must assume that it was not in existence when we took possession.”

THE LETTTER FROM SEFTONS CEO’S LETTER TO ME DATED FEBRUARY 12TH 2001 AROSE FROM A COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN on February 6th 2001, AND A LETTER TO HIM DATED JANUARY 31ST 2001 FROM ME WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON THE BASIS OF FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME BY MARITIME REGARDING INDEPENDENT DEMOLITION BY SEFTON COUNCIL AFTER POSSESSION OF THE KEPLER STREET SITE BY MARITIME - THAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994 - I ASKED THE CEO on January 31st 2001. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“Did Sefton Council have any legal liability for alleged damage caused to my property during demolition by their contractors which occurred after possession by Maritime housing Association Did the Council carry out any independent demolition…SEFTON COUNCIL AND THEIR INSURERS have told me the demolition contract…ran from 17/1/94.

ON FEBRUARY 9TH 2001 SETONS SENIOR CLAIMS MANAGER SENT A TEN PAGE ‘FAX’ TO THE COUNCILS INSURERS STATING:

“Further your phone call – letter for you. The 31/ I received the rest copies Tech Svs have. They are still trying to clarify internally when the actual hand over was as requested in Finance memo to Tech Svs on 8/11 (you have copy faxed on 8/11):

ANNOTATION ON THIS ‘FAX’ CONTINUES.

I need also 8/11 letter from Tech Svs….I think is TS had sent the letter we asked them to this would be over from our point of view and we didn’t need to ??? to Mr R.”

ON FEBRUARY 12TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S CEO RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:

“It is not possible to answer your first question, as Legal liability for alleged damage is assessed and dealt with by claim to the Council’s insurers, a path that was offered to you but you have declined to take…the land transfer by deed to Maritime Housing Association took place on 24 December 1993…demolition work is recorded as commencing 24 January 1994, with Practical Completion on 31 March 1994. This is the date beyond which my Technical Services Department say our responsibility ends…and contractor on site between the dates July and September 1994 were not employed by the Council. The site at Kepler Street was cleared before 14th March 1994.”

ACCORDING TO MARITIME, THIS “CLEARANCE” INCLUDED THE NIB WALL AND, THEREFORE BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE AND, THE TRANSFER MAP. OS SJ3396 DATED 1987 AND 1993, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY, AND MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOTH HAD COMPELLING EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE, THE NIB WALL, WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 WHEN, THE REGISTRY CREATED THEIR FORGERY OF TITLE MS351603 BASED ON OS SJ3396 SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE, THE SCREEN WALL’ BETWEEN 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE, WHICH BY ALL ACCOUNTS HAD BY THAT TIME BEEN DEMOLISHED.

SECTION 67 OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT STATES THAT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR ANY PART OF – THE REGISTER OF TITLE…ANY DOCUMENT WHICH IS REFERRRED TO IN THE REGISTRATION OF TITLE…IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE ORIGINAL.

I HAVE A TITLE MAP SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU PREPARED BY THE REGITRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994, AFTER IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND REGISTERED TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY STATING THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE ONCE ATTACHED, WHEN THEIR OWN MAPPING ON TITLE LA45343 DATED 1966 SHOWS THAT IT NEVER WAS .

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RELY ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTATION AND THEREFORE, NOT POSSIBLE FOR A COMPLAINT BY MYSELF TO RESOLVE THE MATTERS ARISING FROM TITLE MS 351603.

SEFTON COUNCIL HAVE ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH A TERRIER MAP INDICATING THEY OWN THE LAND UNDER TITLE MS351603.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

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

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Our Ref: 69737

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email dated 14 January 2009, requesting an internal
review.

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your request for an
internal review. As your request was received by us on 14 January 2009
we will provide you with a full response within 40 working days, meaning
by 11 March 2009.

Thank you for your enquiry

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

1 Attachment

Our reference: SAP 69737

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your recent request for information, received in pursuance
of the Freedom of Information Act.

We have now completed our investigations into your request for an
internal review and our response to your enquiry is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Harris
Freedom of Information Appeals Officer
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Harris

YOUR RESPONSE TO:

Will you confirm or deny that licensees can lawfully combine
different OS maps to create maps of none existent land or features
on land from two or more different maps.

AND:

For the absence of doubt, are you refusing to answer my FOI Request
regarding the alteration of OS mapping - copies of which have been
sent to you showing precisely what mapping has been altered
(forged) and exactly how this was done by providing the Survey with
hard copy evidence of the altered mapping and, showing how the
forgers used the same cut and paste method as demonstrated, to
produce the altered mapping which, cannot compare with any mapping that has been legitimately produced by the Survey.

YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST BECAUSE:

"There is a possibility that in doing so a competitor might gain a commercially competitive advantage over both the Ordnance Survey and/or its licensees."

AND ARE NOT PREPARED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THESE 'ADVANTAGES' MAY BE ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION

A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



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

(a) they are defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



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



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



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



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



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



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



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



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



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



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


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



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



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



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



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

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



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

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



(11) Where


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

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



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


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



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



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



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



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



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



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



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



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



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



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


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



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



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



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



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



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


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Harris

YOUR RESPONSE FEBRUARY 5TH 2009:

“Where however, mapping is altered and used for illicit reasons it becomes a matter for the law.”

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

S.68

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

s. 69.

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

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

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

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

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

s. 74:--

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

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

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

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

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

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

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

Schedule 3 Part I

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear tony Harris

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

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

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

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

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

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

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

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

False Land Records

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

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

The Information

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

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

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

The Titles

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

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

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

Title LA45086

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

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

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

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

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

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

Fact

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

Registration of MS351603

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

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

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

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

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

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson