County Court Records (Public Records) verification by the Ministry of Justice

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Justice should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

URGENT REQUEST: Urgent Verification of County Court Records Required By The Ministry Of Justice.

This request is pressing, of critical importance and is presented to the Ministry of Justice in protection of my Human Rights under Article 6 – Right to a fair trial and Article 8 – Right to respect for our private and family life.

This FOI request is specifically addressed the Ministry of Justice Technology directorate, to the MoJ's Principal Accounting Officer (the Permanent Secretary) and to the Information Asset Owner (IAO) in charge and holding the data relating to all civil court proceedings.

A – Provide the date when all the recorded information for the case ref. no: 55 of 2017 allegedly issued by the administration staff of the County Court at Bournemouth and Poole was stored in your secure data centre system managed by the MoJ Technology directorate and confirm that you have all the data content in the computerised court records of the case.

B - Confirm that all the recorded information contained in the computerised court record for the County Court case ref. no: 55 of 2017 was directly transferred to the MoJ by the administration of the originating County Court who recorded it on to Caseman system, provide the date when the data was first transferred to the caseman databse and confirm that all the data is now controlled by the MoJ Technology directorate.

C – Confirm that all the recorded information relevant to the County Court case ref. no: 55 of 2017 is in possession of the Information Asset Owner (IAO) in charge as a member of the MoJ Operational Directorate as part of all the data held, relating to all civil court proceedings under the direct control of the Ministry of Justice.

D - The name/s of Principal Accounting Officer/s of HMCTS in charge for the period between 2010 to 2017 and the specific departmental team, address and contact details of the current HMCTS' Principal Accounting Officer in charge at the time of this FOI request.

I make clear that I am not asking for the general process of creation, management and transfer of court records (Information Management System) but rather in the recorded information about those specific public records under this reference number 55 of 2017 (date of issuing the records, date of transfer and confirmation with date of recording in Caseman database. etc).

Yours faithfully,

Liz Watson

SW Region Support,

1 Attachment

Please find attached acknowledgment.

Kind regards

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer & Business Support, HMCTS, SW
Region Support Unit

E [1][email address]

SW Region Support Unit | Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court | Nicholson
Road | Torquay | TQ2 7AZ  |  DX 98740 TORQUAY 4

For information on FOIA:
[2]https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

For information on DPA:
[3]https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

 

 

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.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...
3. https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

SW Region Support,

1 Attachment

Please find attached response.

Kind regards

Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer & Business Support, HMCTS, SW
Region Support Unit

E [1][email address]

SW Region Support Unit | Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court | Nicholson
Road | Torquay | TQ2 7AZ  |  DX 98740 TORQUAY 4

For information on FOIA:
[2]https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

For information on DPA:
[3]https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

 

 

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.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...
3. https://intranet.justice.gov.uk/guidance...

29 November 2017

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I do not know why you have sent such an adversarial response to my straightforward FOIA request, what is the reason for such uncalled-for hostility?
I don't agree to be fobbed off to "SW Region Support" either so will continue to apply directly to the Ministry of Justice, who are directly responsible for the actions (and interactions) of its employees, and who have a Public duty to show transparency and full and open disclosure when called upon to do so.

Your response is not appropriate nor relevant to my FOIA request. I am not asking you for anything more than the information you hold or don't hold concerning my legal fiction (name at birth. To a greater extent, your response is not in compliance with the Law.

Therefore, I am requesting urgently an Internal review. You can read my FOI request here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Suffice it to say, I am far from satisfied with the response that has been received. I have noted that your
reply to my justified requests for information we're entitled to receive that are directly relevant to our current invidious situation, as victims of organised crime, was inappropriately described by you as being "vexatious". Why? It is the organised crime and withholding of data that is 'vexatious'.

It is noted that you have directly declined to acknowledge our right to receive reasonable answers. This is simply not acceptable.

Further, I am deeply concerned at your response where you indicate you find my straightforward request for freedom of information as "annoying " because:-

a) it is your Public duty to provide this information
b) and its our right to be given the information because it is personal data that concerns our estate and our right of access to receive relevant personal data.

Especially since this material is critical to our defence in a court of Law.

In essence, I require the Public Authority who is the Data holder to confirm the existence of those court proceedings and their Public records, in accordance with the Law. This is a very specific request and there is no ambiguity in it for anyone to misinterpret what is being asked for.

If you do not provide the information, then it will be seen as a defamation of my character and neglect of my human rights which will be taken further and for which we will be seeking full redress and exemplary damages. It is people's lives that you are messing around with. It is not some frivolous 'request' or "personal grudge" as you oddly aver.

The main objective of my request remains the same: to obtain everything that has been asked for, so please cooperate with this urgently and provide what is being asked for.

For the record, you may wish to note that we consider your response is adversarial for no reason and this is out of order. You are making various claims of:

"Deliberate intention to cause annoyance" - we are not malicious people, we are kind and loving people
" burden to authority" - we are no burden to anyone, but we find the purported Authorities cast burdens on us which they do not have to bear themselves, and do this on frequent occasions and to millions of others, too;
" personal grudge" - there is no personal grudge as we do not know any employees at the MOJ and even if we did, we have better things to do with our time than to "target your employees" as you absurdly allege;
and "disproportionate efforts" - again, this is nonsensical and has no context or meaning. What is disproportionate amount of resources to look up a database which either exists or doesn't exist? 5 minutes?
Clearly, the problems that the wider public are having are widespread if you are accusing us of being part of a "campaign" - it reflects back on the Ministry of Justice, who notably are the 7th largest Public sector employer with 68,670 employees and over 220 directors - notably, none of your directors are accessible to the Public, but why is this?

Your website and Mission speaks of "equality and diversity" and "transparency" - which, alas, seem to be 'in absentia'.

Please provide your evidence for each of your unfounded allegations.

Section 14(1) may be used in a number of circumstances where a request, or the impact of a request, is not justifiable or reasonable. That does not apply here as you must realise.
Public authorities should consider each case on its own merits and based on circumstances and relevancy of the facts. I can see you have not done this, but are firing off a blanket response without thinking anything through. For this reason, I wish to know in the Public interest, the name of the author of your most recent response?

On 1st November 2017 I presented a freedom of information request asking vital information to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) necessary for the verification of the computerised court records of the proceedings claim number 55 of 2017 which should have been issued by the administration staff of the County Court at Bournemouth and Poole, yet it was not issued by the court.

The main objective of my request remain the same. To obtain the official certification that those proceedings and all their related recorded data are included in the MoJ’s official caseman database containing all the public records with the data held, relating to every civil court proceedings in the County Court and High Court managed under the control of the Ministry of Justice.

If not, then we need to know why it is not there on your records, when a life-changing and demonstrably fraudulent document (fake "Bankruptcy orders" with no petition or proceedings ever issued by the Court), has been issued invalidly and wrongly with evident malicious intent to cause us harm - which is having a deleterious impact on our lives and well being, causing us alarm and distress. It causes us more than just mere "annoyance" which you complain of!

Does the request have any serious purpose or value?
Yes, the questions demand the public truth about public records.
You say there's no benefit to the wider public but it stands to reason that the opposite is true.

In essence I require the public authority who is the data holder to confirm the existence of those court proceedings and their public records in accordance with the law.

The task requires no more than one member of the MoJ’s personnel to log in into the caseman’s database and then answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No'. Do you have a problem with doing this in the interests of Justice?

a) Therefore, please provide response to ALL of my FOI questions after your internal review.
b) As part of your internal review, please explain clearly to the public how this modest task can either cause annoyance and burden to authority or personal grudge
and alleged 'disproportionate efforts'? We are more than perplexed by your remarks.
c) Please provide any alternative routes for the public to access this information taking into account that the court’s administration refuses to provide any answer whatsoever in this matter.
It appears it is because none of you actually have ANY records, do you? If you had, wouldn't you just supply them and be done?
d) Provide the name and surname of the MoJ’s FOI Officer who took the responsibility and authority to write such unnecessary and threatening response.
e) Please provide confirmation that you will inform the Permanent Secretary of Justice and the Information Assets Owner (IAO) about this FOI request. We require these exchanges to be logged with the Permanent Secretary of Justice for public interest reasons, as no doubt there are a few million others with the same issues that we have.

Please explain why the MoJ is using all its legal resources trying to intimidate the people asking straightforward questions and why your FOI officers are refusing to answer
freedom of information requests demanding the truth about public records?

Thanking you,
We anticipate receiving your early response, and look forward to hearing from you, with interest -

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson

NW Regional Support Correspondence, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Good morning,

 

Please find attached acknowledgement to your request for an internal
review.

 

Kind regards,

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Team

 

show quoted sections

Cox, Christopher, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Watson,

 

Please find attached a response to your request for an Internal Review

 

Knowledge Information Liaison Officer

North West Regional Support Unit | HMCTS |Manchester Civil Justice Centre
|1 Bridge St West | Manchester M60 9DJ | DX724780 Manchester 44 |

 

 

show quoted sections

23 December 2017

Dear Cox, Christopher,

Important Notice re. our important FOIA request about the MOJ's record-keeping on data concerning us

I'm ever so sorry that you’ve taken my communication the wrong way, there's obviously some kind of a misunderstanding here, I believe. I've now taken advice, and now realise that I didn't understand your processes and so must apologise if my previous letter was a bit scattergun or just wasn’t sufficiently focused.

However, I will say that it appears that your letter to me sent 2 days ago is the same letter you sent to me a month earlier, being one which you appear to have used with other victims of similar situations as we find ourselves facing, involving court order scams and much more beyond this. We find this a bit worrying, to be fair.
Please be assured, nevertheless, that there are no ill intentions from our side, and indeed there is a specific purpose and reason for the FOIA requests I have made, which I've endeavoured to pinpoint in the numbered paragraphs below:-

(1) Please be advised that my husband and I have been relentlessly pursued through HMCTS for nearly a decade by evidently highly dishonest solicitors (Richard Pitt of Eversheds Cardiff office and David Webb of M&M Law/Matthew & Matthew), who have been trying to divest us of our family home which I paid cash for back in December 1993, on a basis that it now emerges is entirely spurious and involves attempted money-laundering on a very serious scale.

Due to the manipulation of the Court process and various abuses therein by involved court officers, we've ended up having our validly issued (with a £1,600 fee we paid) High Court Claim against HBOS PLC, derailed in 2010 without any hearing or trial, not even a defence was issued, and because of that our positions were dishonestly reversed - turning us from being the rightful CLAIMANTS into being the purported "defendants" to the Bank concerned, thanks to the twists and turns of barrister Paul Mitchell from Hailsham Chambers (who rose to QC status following his serious misdemeanours) colluding with Eversheds Partners Tim Pyle and latterly Richard Pitt.
We now know that HBOS PLC had their name used but have evidence to show that the real protagonist is a clone version of it which has operated ultra vires and off ledger using fake Bank accounts under the trading name of "In Parallel Solutions" through the Lloyds Private Banking Unit in Manchester. The evidence suggests that a 'shadow bank' has contracted with a 'shadow court' to launder substantial sums of money and to attempt to divest us of our home and property rights without a shred of forensic proof.

They appear to have been motivated and driven to conceal an illegal draw down which had been made on our property by Fraser Mackay the ex-Head Auditor of HBOS PLC, which was used to bribe a US official in November 2001 when his boiler house scheme began to collapse.
We now know that it was because all client moneys which he'd been illegally pooling in offshore accounts got frozen by the US Authorities on 19/11/2001, and he wanted to find a way to reverse the freezing order so he executed a draw down on our house without our authority and a 17 year cover-up has continued for all this time - to protect Lloyds Banking Group and conceal the frauds and thefts they are committing using false instruments against innocent people like ourselves.

The fact we have never received a penny from any bank did not seem to enter in to it, in their eyes.
We now know they securitised moneys against our Estate without updating the register at Land Registry, where they used David Webb to enter an unauthorised charge against our Register on a void deed he'd created without our knowledge, which used our forged signatures, and have withheld all disclosure from us for 17 years.

(2) Due to the 17 year criminal cover up, the truth has been concealed from us until we delved into the records.

We are bewildered that it appears you may believe that under the FOIA that our personal information is something we are not entitled to access. We do not understand why this is and so ask you to kindly reconsider things in light of the further explanations provided here, please.

Its just that I was advised in writing by your Manager of the Statutory Records department at the MOJ (Veronica foster) that there is no record of any 'judgment debt' against our names under "8PC26793", upon which the Bankruptcy orders referred to as "055 and 056 of 2017" solely rely.
We are not bankrupt and are not insolvent and we have never incurred any debts.

So naturally, we wanted to check this with the Ministry of Justice as to why we have been bankrupted on 2/10/17 (without any petition or paperwork ever being served to us from the Court), and to find out why we have Richard Pitt of Eversheds LLP Cardiff snapping at our heels to try to ruin our lives with the ongoing harassment and vexatious unsubstantiated allegations that we are "debtors" when there is no sustainable evidence that any legal mortgage exists, nor is there any mortgage contract or transfer that's ever taken place.
We understand that the FCA introduced new rules in March 2016 and reinforced this in March 2017 for individual accountability by Banks - but far from there being any such accountability by the BOS or Eversheds or their agents, we've been told by the BOS there is NO DRAW DOWN and NO SOLICITORS INSTRUCTED and NO RECORD OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WERE USED to route things through!
We've clearly suffered identity theft on top of everything else, and so would like to enlist your assistance to access a legal remedy here, in the interests of natural Justice.

(3) Veronica Foster's letter of 11 December 2017 confirms an earlier email she had helpfully sent to me stating there is no record of any 'judgment debt' under "8PC26793", confirming no such record exists, viz:

"Dear Mr & Mrs Watson
County Court judgment - Case number: 8PC26793
Please see attached my email dated 15 November 2017 which confirms registry Trust Ltd having no record of the above judgment.
Yours sincerely
V.Foster (Mrs)
customer Services Manager"

Therefore, it stands to reason that it is clearly impossible for two "Bankruptcy orders" to have been lawfully made on the back of a non-existent "judgment debt", particularly where there has never been any due process of Law nor disclosure of any supporting evidence.

(4) This is especially upsetting because it denotes my husband and I have had our lives turned upside down and unimaginable distress caused because we have been deceived into attending Court for over 9 years on what turns out to be a huge lie and a hoax. This has taken an extremely heavy toll on our stress levels, health, happiness, finances, right to Family life and much much more, as you can imagine.

(5) I was also told in July 2015 by the Bournemouth County Court that no electronic records exist of Case "8PC26793" on the HMCTS System, and a staff member there (Mrs Sadie) revealed that they "have no record of any possession order against our property" - so the inverse evidence is at least congruent with the facts.

This appears to be entirely consistent with the fact that no Possession claim has ever been issued or sealed by the Bournemouth County court, nor received by us from them - even confirmed by the Court in writing back in September 2014.

We have issued and hand-delivered to the Court counter, 3 Statutory Constructive Notices to the Bournemouth County Court since 30 October 2017 seeking disclosure of information to confirm if such a record exists on the Court record as "055 & 056 of 2017" and "8PC26793", but there has been no response whatsoever. This is another reason we are forced to refer to the MOJ, as you can hopefully begin to appreciate we have been severely wronged.

Yet, unimaginable harassment has been allowed to continue for all these years because of the criminal activity of certain Court officers (in particular, Eversheds solicitors) who have evidently been deploying a faction operating within the Court to assist Eversheds and David Webb to conspire against us, which has permitted Justice to continue being perverted to our huge cost and detriment. They have aided and abetted compound torts to be imposed upon us, continually denied us all access to evidence or any Cause of Action or enforceable contract or mortgage, and blocked all disclosure which is against our Human Rights and the natural Rule of Law.

(6) Upon realising that the 'kangaroo hearing' which led to the purported 'order for possession' made by an evidently complicit judge (Martin Alan Gordon Dancey) on 1/7/2015 in our absence was done in a private capacity for private pecuniary advantage involving serial torts and frauds, and was unenforceable in Law because no registered debt exists, they decided to try to 'bankrupt' us instead, using a private chamber (also unlawful), with no due process of Law whatsoever, no evidence of a debt provided, no named creditor on the void 'orders' of 2/10/2017 - so they went through the motions of it without there being any substance to it.
We now know there is Case Law from the Court of Appeal which renders any hearing conducted in a private Chambers as unlawful and must therefore be overturned.

(7) The judge’s conduct at the unnotified '2 day possession trial' (discovered by me by accident from an email exchanged with Mr Pitt) was fraudulent and had grave conflicts of interest, such as the fact he relied upon a business partner (David Ross Webb of Matthew & Matthew solicitors at 194 Seabourne Road, southbourne, Bournemouth) as a "witness" to Eversheds, when it is evident now that David Webb (and not the Bank of Scotland PLC, after all) is the instructing party to Eversheds.

Mr Webb would be highly motivated, it appears, to acquire our property and clean up the toxic records because of the substantial sum of equity he has stripped from our Estate over the past 24.5 years which exceeds 7 figures. He appears to be the beneficiary of 7 mortgages he has drawn on our Estate and has left us with a legacy of 2 false 'charges' on the Register at LR predicated on our forged signatures.

(8) I have even recently unearthed documentary evidence that indicates that a conduit and accomplice for David Webb appears to be a POLICE constable from Dorset Police, the latter is a party who has also applied for 2 of the 7 loans and even a vodafone account in 2015 using our home address as if it is his address, using our asset and details for private pecuniary gain without our authorisation. This, in turn, goes a long way to explaining why Dorset Police have blocked all investigation in to our problems for over 12 years now.

(9) We have further found out that David Webb was the solicitor to the vendor of our house, and he acted without any POA or instruction against our property and family home dating right back to December 1993, when he orchestrated a Leasehold rather than a Freehold, taking advantage that I wasn’t well at the time. He used a fraudulent Title number, however, and purported to pay stamp duty on it which of course would have meant that no stamp duty was paid in the end as LR admitted the Title is invalid.
The solicitor that we had instructed (David Monk of Bennett Thomas) worked with Mr Webb in the background and later became his employee, we now know. Mr Monk has now vanished and seems untraceable since about 2013, along with the vendor of our property, Mr Baynham.

(10) Consequently were in touch with Land Registry with the aim of seeking to get it all rectified and to claim back our Freehold Title, only to discover (throughout 2016) that Mr Webb had raised and misappropriated substantial funds against our names which is Identity fraud and unlawful asset stripping (see details above).

(11) I hope that this helps to explain why the FOIA information about the records of the cases through which all these events have been routed is critical information that we now need: as we can’t conclude anything until your office concludes the investigation and provides us with our relevant personal data.

(12) We give you our sincere assurance that we are not trying to be annoying, merely to save our home and access Justice which we are clearly entitled to do and must be permitted to do.
We feel exhausted by the attrition we've encountered in seeking access to Justice which we believe is a right and not a privilege, and so we naturally hope and pray that there will be no more obstacles put in our way. Your understanding would therefore be much appreciated.

(13) We have observed that neither the void 'possession order' created by District judge Dancey nor the void 'bankruptcy orders' rubber-stamped by Deputy District Judge Dixon had any due process of Law, nor any valid service.
These two judges did not follow the court rules, ignored there was no valid service, ignored that nothing had ever been issued with the Court, ignored that no disclosure of any Cause of action had been provided on either count, and both were demonstrably working to an undisclosed agenda, both it appears were dishonest and were colluding with their business associates from Eversheds and Messrs Webb and his conduit, David Monk - to our direct detriment. This has desecrated our confidence and trust in British Courts based on our experience of them, as you can hopefully appreciate.

(14) Specifically, our main contention now is that my husband and I have been bankrupted on a lie: of an alleged judgment debt that does not exist, can not be proven, and which we did not incur. And that we appear to be being prevented from accessing restitution to the foregoing kafkaesque nightmare we've had to endure for over 24 years now.

We require our position to be fully restored, the substantial stolen funds returned to us, and the false charges removed from the Register, particularly as we are now approaching retirement age and want our lives back. We trust that this message provides a proportionate perspective to our request and the importance of it.

Please could explain to me how all of the above events have been allowed to happen, given the Ministry of Justice records on the above cases are 'in absentia'?

Yours sincerely,

Liz Watson (on behalf of Liz & craig watson)

Cox, Christopher, Ministry of Justice

I am out of the office until Tueday 2 January 2018.  If you need
information or advice please contact david.dodd@@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. 0161
240 5837

show quoted sections