Complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Below is the response (dated 16 September 2014) to complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee, but not known about by the complainant until 23 May 2016 (over a year and a half later).

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316099464/Adv...

The complaint submitted 2 September 2014 for your reference:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316097134/Jud...

I would like to know the identity of the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who in the letter is said to have dealt with the complaint.

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

Dear fFaudwAtch UK,

Please note, under section 8(1) of FOIA, a request for
information must comply with three requirements. It must:

(a) be in writing,
(b) state the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.

After initial consideration, this request appears to comply with requirements (a) and (c) but it does not comply with requirement (b) because you have not provided your full name.
I am therefore not required to process your request without information that can later be referred to, as per Section 8(1)(b) FOIA. The information we require is your name.
As your request has been deemed invalid, I am not obliged to disclose the requested information at this point and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that any future FOI submissions adhere to Section 8 of the FOIA.
To enable us to meet your request, please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the requirements stated above.
You will then receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt.
You can find out more about Section 8 by reading the extract from the Act available at the attached link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Kind regards

Data Access and Compliance Unit

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Yours sincerely,

N Gilliatt AKA fFaudwAtch UK

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

 
Dear N Gilliatt,
 
Please find herewith our acknowledgment of your Freedom of Information
request submitted on 20 June 2016, in respect of Advisory Committees.
 
Yours sincerely
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 |
Westgate | Leeds | LS1 3JP | DX: 743892 Leeds (Westgate)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

NE RSU FOI & DPA,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt,
 
Please find herewith our reply to your Freedom of Information request
dated 20 June 2016 in respect of the Advisory Committee (H&SY).
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
K Smith
 
K Smith
NE Region KILO
NE Delivery Directors Office,
Level 5 | Leeds Magistrates Court & Family Hearing Centre | PO Box 97 |
Westgate | Leeds | LS1 3JP | DX: 743892 Leeds (Westgate)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Ministry of Justice's 15 july 2016 response:

"The MoJ considers your request to be vexatious and in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA, we will not be taking it any further
........
The MoJ considers your request to be vexatious for the following reasons:

BURDEN ON THE AUTHORITY:
You have continued to submit a large volume of requests and general correspondence in respect of the issues relating to your matters before the courts. I consider that to continue to respond to your requests on this topic places an unreasonable burden on the department and causes a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on your correspondence. The resources of the department are publicly funded and the department has a responsibility to protect those resources from abuse, and will use the available legislation under the FOIA to do so.

UNREASONABLE PERSISTENCE AND FUTILE REQUESTS:
Section 14 of the FOIA allows the department to consider the wider interactions with a requester beyond the parameters of the request itself when determining if a request is vexatious. I have considered the multiple requests both FOIA and normal business correspondence made in relation to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the Justices Clerk, and Judges and Magistrates over the recent months. In respect of this matter your complaint to the Advisory Committee was investigated and responded to on 16 September 2014. You escalated your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, who have completed their report and informed you that your complaint was not upheld. It is our assessment that you are using the FOIA as a vehicle to reopen matters which have been conclusively addressed by the Advisory Committee. The FOIA is not the correct regime to address the issues you continue to raise. "

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Obviously touched a nerve.

All was asked was a simple question requiring the minimal amount of work, i.e., to provide the identity of the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who in the letter is said to have dealt with the complaint.

Or - perhaps it wasn't such a simple question after all, and simply labeling the request as futile was easier than telling the truth?

(Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team - 102 Petty France)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316778791/Com...

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear Ministry of Justice,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee'.

Labelling my request vexatious/futile, proves that it has a serious purpose with the intention to find out information because the MoJ is obviously abusing section 14(1) of the FOIA to save embarrassment of dealing with the request correctly. The appropriate way would be in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of section 1 by confirming that it did not hold the information of the description specified in the request.

Public bodies such as the Ministry of justice should have realised by now that honesty is always the best policy, no matter how much embarrassment is caused. Or, maybe a policy exists that relies on the probability that for every thousand cover-ups only one is exposed by the media and so benefits outweigh the risks.

Turning to your spurious statement concerning the 16 September 2014 response to my complaint to the Advisory Committee and its escalation to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) who concluded that the complaint was not upheld. I don't believe you really expect people to be taken in by such claims, as most will know that organisations like JACO are positioned at the taxpayer's expense to merely give the impression that holders of public and/or judicial office are accountable.

The evidence ( http://tinyurl.com/znkzkrl ) pointed obviously to the complaint response being produced purposely for the investigation. The Ombudsman had demonstrably turned a blind eye in order to bury misconduct and protect the judicial holder from the consequences. Your concerns therefore about Freedom of Information associated with the department's responsibility to protect resources from abuse would better be directed toward public money misspent on funding those bogus organisations as a means of faking accountability.

To assume that my requests are unreasonable, persistent and futile is simply baseless. It is because of the intransigent way public bodies present themselves that I have been driven to using FOI as a means of attempting myself to identify causes of numerous injustices and stitch-ups I have been subjected to since being exposed to, and feeling under a public duty to highlight which is endemic in public bodies. One of those is summarised ( http://tinyurl.com/zcwoqmf ) in an "Action Fraud" report about Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Humberside police etc.

I therefore do not consider it unreasonable or futile for wanting to hold to account (by pursuing the truth) those whose negligence and dishonesty has led to a criminal record and £600+ fine for an offence I'm completely innocent of; and harassment for debt which is not owed because Council officers, unfit for public roles, are abusing their position to carry out a personal vendetta ( http://tinyurl.com/p233lzt ).

The MoJ has been given appropriate reasons why section 14(1) of the FOIA has been applied wrongly, in light of which it may wish to change its decision in a review. In considering the above content it will be obvious that the reason for asking for the information is as far away from being vexatious as it could possibly be.

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

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

EnforcementKILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

 

Find attached the acknowledgment for the Internal review request received
by Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

 

Kind regards

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer
Contracts and Projects Manager │ National Compliance and Enforcement
Service │ Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

2nd Floor – 2.10
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

EnforcementKILO,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

 

Find attached the response to the internal review received by Ministry of
Justice (MoJ).

 

Kind regards

 

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer │ National Compliance and
Enforcement Service │ Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

2nd Floor – 2.10
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
020 3334 4528

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear EnforcementKILO,

I can not make any logical link with what you have written in your response (see below) to attempting to obtain information via the FOIA. I would also like the final sentence clarifying because I do not consider a bogus Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman's decision to be a court order.

"I understand that as part of your multiple previous requests your complaint to the Advisory Committee was investigated and responded to on 16 September 2014. You escalated your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, the Ombudsman have completed their report into your complaint and you were informed that your complaint was not upheld. Dissatisfaction with a court order should be addressed through a legal route. "

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear EnforcementKILO,

Can you please clarify what I asked in my 9 August 2016 email because it would be useful for setting out my intended complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint to Information Commissioner's Office for the MoJ's mishandling of this freedom of information request.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF

13 August 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST TO MOJ – REF: FOI / 106083

I made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’), details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
“Complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee”

BACKGROUND

My request is connected with an issue ongoing since November 2012 and surrounds a disputed order made against me by Justices at Grimsby Magistrate’s court which led to an application to the court to state a case for an appeal to the high court.

I have been unable to obtain the case stated, despite making numerous attempts. It is this failure that has prevented the appeal that was instituted on 22 November 2012 from proceeding to the High Court to this day.

The injustice caused extends far beyond that relating to the court’s obstruction in the matter. Those issues predominantly concern North East Lincolnshire Council misallocating payment to the sum subject to appeal when payment was clearly intended for the year’s council tax account which was current when paid. As the council has been able to engineer payment arrears this has led to recovery being taken through the court each year since with further costs added in the most recent proceedings. That in turn has led to time consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints, escalation of issues to the LGO, police, police appeals and entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence by improperly exercising police powers under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The issues, as far as those directly relating to HMCTS are evident from the correspondence compiled chronologically appended to a letter of complaint to HMCTS Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team (http://tinyurl.com/znkzkrl). That correspondence is referable to the draft chronology (http://tinyurl.com/zqm5dtq) prepared for, and intended to be part of the High Court papers for the case stated appeal.

It will be evident on reading the account that the root cause of the matter which has protracted so far over three and a half years has been the unwillingness and refusal of the court to cooperate, which in some cases has involved more seriously lying.

Initial delay

There was no contact made when the Deputy Justices’ Clerk who was initially dealing with the application left HMCTS toward the end of 2012. After several weeks having no update, enquiries were made to find out why there was no progress being made and it was only on this prompt that it was found out that the Deputy Justices’ Clerk was no longer employed by HMCTS.

Unnecessary Claim for mandatory order

The failure to deal with queries about the recognizance which the Magistrates set at £500 resulted in gross injustice as it was necessary to research judicial review procedures (mandatory order) as it was not reasonable to expect that the expense of appointing a legal professional should be incurred. It was only by doing this and when the judicial review claim was underway that the Magistrates' Court admitted in the Acknowledgement of Service that ‘the question of the appropriateness of the recognizance and/or the amount could have been considered by the court’. Simply answering correspondence would have meant the trouble that went into making the claim for judicial review was not necessary.

Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

Various correspondence went unanswered from 19 August 2013 when representations were made on the draft case, up until the Justices' Clerk finally made contact on 6 March 2014 stating that either that day or the following the position regarding the case (advising on the next steps) would be set out in writing. Even with that undertaking there was no communication advising on the next steps. Subsequent attempts to find out what was happening elicited no response.

A letter sent 22 April 2014 requested the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case under section 111(5) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 but was never answered, neither was an email sent 9 July 2014 to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict contact with the court.

Judicial complaint to Humber Advisory Committee

There was no response until 23 February 2016 to a judicial complaint dated 2 September 2014 to the Advisory Committee which was obtained only after engaging the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman. It is claimed that the matter was dealt with on 16 September 2014 and stated that a Certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices because the final case had been sent. Despite this, a copy which has been requested has not been resent nor has the Justices’ Clerk’s undertaking to explain the matter by 15 April 2016 ever been acted on.

FoI Request – 18 June 2016

The MoJ was asked in relation to a response of 16 September 2014 (http://tinyurl.com/h4vdfz9) to complaint to Humber & South Yorks Advisory Committee (http://tinyurl.com/ha35mf3) if it would disclose the identity of the Deputy Chairman of the Advisory Committee who in the letter was said to have dealt with the complaint.

NOTE: The 16 September 2014 response was not known about by the complainant until 23 May 2016 (over a year and a half later) prompted by a provisional investigation by the Judicial Conduct Ombudsman.

Response – 15 July 2016

The MoJ determined the request vexatious and refused to provide the information under section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act citing the following reasons:

BURDEN ON THE AUTHORITY:

You have continued to submit a large volume of requests and general correspondence in respect of the issues relating to your matters before the courts. I consider that to continue to respond to your requests on this topic places an unreasonable burden on the department and causes a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on your correspondence. The resources of the department are publicly funded and the department has a responsibility to protect those resources from abuse, and will use the available legislation under the FOIA to do so.

UNREASONABLE PERSISTENCE AND FUTILE REQUESTS:

Section 14 of the FOIA allows the department to consider the wider interactions with a requester beyond the parameters of the request itself when determining if a request is vexatious. I have considered the multiple requests both FOIA and normal business correspondence made in relation to Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, the Justices Clerk, and Judges and Magistrates over the recent months. In respect of this matter your complaint to the Advisory Committee was investigated and responded to on 16 September 2014. You escalated your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, who have completed their report and informed you that your complaint was not upheld. It is our assessment that you are using the FOIA as a vehicle to reopen matters which have been conclusively addressed by the Advisory Committee. The FOIA is not the correct regime to address the issues you continue to raise.

Request for internal review – 16 July 2016

The following representations were submitted in contesting the response which the MoJ had refused on the basis that the request was vexatious/futile:

“Labelling my request vexatious/futile, proves that it has a serious purpose with the intention to find out information because the MoJ is obviously abusing section 14(1) of the FOIA to save embarrassment of dealing with the request correctly. The appropriate way would be in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of section 1 by confirming that it did not hold the information of the description specified in the request.

Public bodies such as the Ministry of justice should have realised by now that honesty is always the best policy, no matter how much embarrassment is caused. Or, maybe a policy exists that relies on the probability that for every thousand cover-ups only one is exposed by the media and so benefits outweigh the risks.

Turning to your spurious statement concerning the 16 September 2014 response to my complaint to the Advisory Committee and its escalation to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) who concluded that the complaint was not upheld. I don't believe you really expect people to be taken in by such claims, as most will know that organisations like JACO are positioned at the taxpayer's expense to merely give the impression that holders of public and/or judicial office are accountable.

The evidence (http://tinyurl.com/znkzkrl) pointed obviously to the complaint response being produced purposely for the investigation. The Ombudsman had demonstrably turned a blind eye in order to bury misconduct and protect the judicial holder from the consequences. Your concerns therefore about Freedom of Information associated with the department's responsibility to protect resources from abuse would better be directed toward public money misspent on funding those bogus organisations as a means of faking accountability.

To assume that my requests are unreasonable, persistent and futile is simply baseless. It is because of the intransigent way public bodies present themselves that I have been driven to using FOI as a means of attempting myself to identify causes of numerous injustices and stitch-ups I have been subjected to since being exposed to, and feeling under a public duty to highlight which is endemic in public bodies. One of those is summarised (http://tinyurl.com/zcwoqmf) in an "Action Fraud" report about Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Humberside police etc.

I therefore do not consider it unreasonable or futile for wanting to hold to account (by pursuing the truth) those whose negligence and dishonesty has led to a criminal record and £600+ fine for an offence I'm completely innocent of; and harassment for debt which is not owed because Council officers, unfit for public roles, are abusing their position to carry out a personal vendetta (http://tinyurl.com/p233lzt).

The MoJ has been given appropriate reasons why section 14(1) of the FOIA has been applied wrongly, in light of which it may wish to change its decision in a review. In considering the above content it will be obvious that the reason for asking for the information is as far away from being vexatious as it could possibly be.”

Response to internal review – 9 August 2016

The response and the handling of the request was determined to have been in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the request correctly refused on the basis of Section 14 (1) of the Freedom Information Act.

In its response the MoJ made the following comments

“I understand that as part of your multiple previous requests your complaint to the Advisory Committee was investigated and responded to on 16 September 2014. You escalated your complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, the Ombudsman have completed their report into your complaint and you were informed that your complaint was not upheld. Dissatisfaction with a court order should be addressed through a legal route.”

The MoJ has demonstrated not to have understood the issues and in any event has been unable to distinguish that the Freedom of Information Act exists separately from organisations such as the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO). The Freedom of Information Act is one avenue which entitles a UK citizen lawful access to information for whatever purpose, and if the use may assist someone seeking to overcome the MoJ’s obstruction to justice, it is reasonable for that avenue to be taken advantage of.

Yours sincerely

EnforcementKILO,

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you for your email below. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with our response. The next step for you is to escalate the matter, the procedure for which has been set out at the conclusion of my response sent to you.

How to Appeal

Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he considers that we have handled it incorrectly.

You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet address: https://www.ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us


Kind regards

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer │ National Compliance and Enforcement Service │ Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
2nd Floor – 2.10
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear EnforcementKILO,

Thank you for your 18 August 2016 response advising of the next step to escalate this matter. However, I had already taken this action on 13 August.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours sincerely,

fFaudwAtch UK

Closing In left an annotation ()

Commissioner's Decision Notice; FS50641988

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Ged Simmons left an annotation ()

The Information Commissioner's Decision Notice relating to this request has all the the hallmarks of a 'Wernham' cover-up.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org