Dear Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland),

A title was put on the web for anyone to see that did not relate to other information released. The concern I have is that any request from the general public or a specific person should have a title related to what data is released, and not the title of what an individual is insinuating as a problem.

Below is the Request:

EIR Request (received 05 October 2020) - Reference: DFI/2020-0272 Could you please forward me all records on the flooding we had due to the septic tank at a named address on Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough, overflowing into ourselves? After some thought we have now made the decision that we will file a claim for damages and I would like to forward these to loss adjuster.

This is the reply from the River Agency;
Response (issued 02 November 2020) Thank you for your email of 5 October 2020, requesting under the Environmental Information Regulations, information DfI Rivers holds in relation to a septic tank overflowing into your property. I can confirm that DfI Rivers holds the attached information related to your request.

Reply from River Agency due to my complaint:

I received the following from the River Agency:

Dear Mr Clark
Thank you for your email of 26 August 2022.
The wording describing the EIR requests on our website is designed, as much as possible, to reflect the actual question(s) posed by the requester.
However, on this occasion, we have amended the descriptor to read “EIR request for copies of all records held regarding flooding, allegedly due to a septic tank overflow, on the Ballykeel Road, Newtownstewart, Hillsborough”.

Their reply is not correct as they had information related to addressing a watercourse issue. It had nothing to do with the septic tank. Their reply to change one word is not acceptable

Yours faithfully,

Reginald Clark

Dear DfI Information Management Unit, and Hugh Murnaghan,

It is a complaint as well as I am asking for information related to the following EIR Request from 23 Ballykeel Road that had mistakes in the TITLE AND DESCRIPTION:

**********************
EIR Request (received 05 October 2020) - Reference: DFI/2020-0272 Could you please forward me all records on the flooding we had due to the septic tank at a named address on Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough, overflowing into ourselves? After some thought we have now made the decision that we will file a claim for damages and I would like to forward these to loss adjuster.

Response (issued 02 November 2020) Thank you for your email of 5 October 2020, requesting under the Environmental Information Regulations, information DfI Rivers holds in relation to a septic tank overflowing into your property. I CAN CONFIRM THAT DFI RIVERS HOLDS THE ATTACHED INFORMATION RELATED TO YOUR REQUEST.
The underline reply from your office is NOT TRUE as you only had information related to correcting a problems under the Schedule 6 Application to address a problem with the watercourse blockage on my property and it had nothing to do with MY SEPTIC TANK.

The title is put on the web for anyone to see. The concern I have is that any request from the general public or a specific person should have a title related to what data is released, and not the title of what an individual is insinuating as a problem.
Instead of Addressing the issue correctly and removing the description completely and stating that you only have information related to the correction of a blocked or diverted watercourse, you send me the following, which is an insult.

Dear Mr Clark
Thank you for your email of 26 August 2022.
The wording describing the EIR requests on our website is designed, as much as possible, to reflect the actual question(s) posed by the requester.
However, on this occasion we have amended the descriptor to read “EIR request for copies of all records held regarding flooding, allegedly due to a septic tank overflow, on the Ballykeel Road, Newtownstewart, Hillsborough”.

Regards

Niall McKenna
DfI Rivers
***************************************
so, I would like the date time stamps to all of the photos related to the DFI/2020-0272 and also I would like to see the spreadsheet that Peter Neish sent to me and it should be in the files dumped to 23 Ballykeel Road regarding the calculation for the 375 mm pipe.
see below the email sent to Peter Neish on May 24, 2018 at 10:48.

you will see that I questioned the spreadsheet cells with division by 0.
*************************************************8
From: REGINALD CLARK GOOGLE <[email address]>
Sent: 24 May 2018 10:48
To: 'Neish ,Peter' <[email address]>; 'REGINALD CLARK GOOGLE' <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Maps for 21 Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough

Peter,

Thank you for your prompt reply and thank you for the attachments, even though it is not enough to help determine the pipe size..

I agree with your comments that you felt the current pipe was insufficient to support the watercourse.

I have found several documents related to the Poots & Cochrane Method, one such report that also focuses on the use of this method and calculations parameters to determine the correct pipe size.

As the current landowner and the Drainage Order you continue to reference, I am in full agreement with the River Agency that this must be resolved immediately, even though the previous pipe had been in the ground since 1979 and only within the last two months did anyone see a major problem due to the heavy rain.

What my wife and myself have some issues with is the fact that it seems that you have allowed Peter Murdock and Mary Ann Johnston weaver you to focus on their issues with myself instead of looking at the fact that it was myself that initiated the investigation by contacting the water service, the road service and then the River Service to address this issue.

We would like to know why when I contacted your office that you scheduled to visit me one week later but after I told Mary Ann Johnston that I was in contact with your office and she called you, you came out on the same day.

In your Flood Investigation Report, we would like to know how you came up to state in your report that there are other issues at this property regarding the septic tank and its operation, which you have done nothing to support this claim as it is obvious that it has come from your discussion with Mary Ann Johnston and Peter Mourdock.

Based on your drawing and that fact that for 18 years, the water from the road and the field across the road has been coming into my yard and travelling over my septic tank, continuing downward as well as the fact that a paddock has been installed where the original sukaway was built though a gentlemen’s agreement with the original owner, not myself.

With the correction of the watercourse routing with the Schedule 8 application, none of that water for the last 17 years will come anywhere near my septic tank or the paddock to the barn. For some unknown reason, Peter cannot understand this and yesterday demanded that this does not happen again.

So, I do not feel your comment supports the flow volumes about the Q100.

None of the water that has flooded Peter Murdocks property is due to flow volumes, but due to the flow not going along the correct water course. As soon as it is corrected, this will be resolved.

I would like to know on what date did you walk the full catchment. Did you go into the field across the street, where 95% of the water is coming from? My neighbour Noel and myself stood outside on the road during one major rain and we could see that on the right hand side of the road, there was no water flowing down but on the left hand side where the gulley is located, if was like a small river, which is why we both feel that the water in mainly coming from the field. There is another shuck halfway up the field splitting the lower field and the upper field.

My wife and I see another issue with your comments in support of Mary Ann Johnston and Peter Mourdock. You stated that the pipe size is also based on Mr Mourdock’s commercial interests. There are residential properties and as I am not aware of any business address to support your comment. The fact that he has horses on his property should not require that a 1 to 100 year design is required as you have stated.

Again, when the watercourse is routed correctly, there are no houses in the proximity of the watercourse except my house and 19 Ballykeel Road, but his house is higher so it will not have any impact.

You have not provided me with enough information to my request supporting the 375 mm pipe.

One of the spreadsheets is showing DIV/0 so the calculations on the spreadsheet means nothing that one could link to the pipe size.

I have a BS Degree in Mathematics with a minor in Atomic and Nuclear Physics so I have no problem understanding formulas, equations, etc.

The 375 mm pipe can be fitted as the depth is currently 25 mm with the 6 inch pipe.

Based on the Drainage Order, the River Agency and either myself or the insurance company would have to agree with an arbitrator to review the concern about our requirement.

My insurance company is getting all communication that I am having with you regarding this issue.

Your department is empowered to protect the drainage and flood defence of all watercourses and based on being in breach of the order based on my initiative, not yours or Peter or Mary Ann, I am working to abate this issue or as you say nuisance as soon as possible.

As I have asked you two times, can you provide me the documentation or reference in the Draining Order that states that as I am trying to address the correction to meet the Schedule 6 application, it is my responsibility to get permissions to meet the approved Schedule 6 application. I want a reference in writing, not you telling me it is my responsibility.

This is your comment to my request for a link or reference that it is my responsibility:

“DfI Rivers will give consent under Schedule 6 of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973 to carry out the works once we have received a satisfactory application. The response time is normally anything up to 3 months but I’ll return it very promptly once received.

Consent will include the following detail, ‘It is your responsibility to contact any other parties which may have an interest in your proposals e.g. NIEA, Landowners, Fisheries etc.’”

This does not give me what I asked for.

I do not know why you wasted your time sending me the following comment:

“i also wish to advise, that should your property’s storm water currently discharge to the culverted watercourse without consent, this would result in a further breach of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973, and may result in the need for an increase in the required pipe size. “

I have no intention of carrying out any work until the Schedule 6 Application is approved by the River agency and if you think that your idle threat that the pipe will be larger, you will have to show the calculation, which I do not think you will be able to do.

And as for your last point, which I another idle threat in my opinion, I have been in contact with at least 4 companies and 3 civil engineers to help with providing the technical drawings for the work. I hope to have the Schedule 6 application submitted by around June 3 as I only received the report from you on May 3rd.

So, if you want to start enforcement action on June 4, feel free to do so as I am not concerned as I can prove that I have been working to address this issue since it became a problem.

Regards;

Reginald Clark

*******************************************************************

the question I have now is that when I requested proof to support the 375 mm pipe, I was given data that was useless but then 23 Ballykeel Road requested the EIR Request, I see that all of the detail calculations, etc are included.

is this another example of discrimination as being a BLACK AMERICAN requesting information, I am given useless information bu then a local WHITE NORTHERN IRELAND person requests the information, you provide everythng.

Yours sincerely,

REGINALD CLARK

Dear DfI Information Management Unit,

Dear Mr. McGorry,

I would like to thank you for your reply dated November 30 2022, regarding the FOI request in relation to DFI/2022-0326.

Disclosure Log on DFI Website

The first point of disclosure of information in regards to the EIR Request that stated that my septic tank was flooding on someone’s property and the river agency reply was, “I can confirm that DFI river holds a test information related to your request” is not factual as the River Agency had information related to the correction of the watercourse on my property that had been working fine from 1979 to 2018 and during that time, nothing had been done to the watercourse. The insurance contractor felt that the roots of the Conifer trees blocked the watercourse, which was due to incorrect piping running down the watercourse in my back yard. Correcting that problem was not an issue but I never new the piping for half of the watercourse was unacceptable.

Are you telling me that because ALL Public Authorities allow for Disclosure Logs to tape the Title of Each Request to be based on the Question Asked? If that is the case, this needs to be updated as policies and procedures are updated to address corrections.

The description for the publication that was posted on the web under the EIR Request should be based on weather your department can support the request. If you do not have information to support the request , are you telling me you still have to pretend you can support the request? You supported the EIR Request based on the official report by Peter Neish, dated May 1, 2018 that stated the following:

• It appears as though, at some point, this watercourse has been rerouted to, or near to Mr.Clarke’s septic tank in an undersized pipe. At this point the water rises from the ground and floods the neighbouring yard. Mr Clarke’s garden is also badly waterlogged (diagram shown below).

• There are other issues at this property regarding the septic tank and its operation, which are outside the remit of the Department.

I replied in an email dated, May 24, 2018 regarding some on the points in the report and have yet to get a reply to provide evidence on some of the points of the May 1 2018 report.

The fact that you wanted to make one change to state that you using the word alleged clears your department of making a mistake? Based on your reply, you are telling me that under your policy, any question that is asked is taken as being valid and will be published on the website.

The fact that there was no investigation related to my septic tank, because the neighbor would not even allow anyone to go on to their property to investigate the septic tank it means that you should not have made the statement that you had information related to that. And in your reports from Peter Neish, he actually stated that the my neighbors will not allow access to check the septic tank.
Internal Review

Regarding my request for an internal review, it all relates to the fact that the report that was written on May 1. 2018 had some points that were correct in the report and some points that I felt did not have evidence to support the statements in the report. I have asked for evidence to support certain points that I felt were incorrect and after over five years, I have not received one reply to address the points that I have raised. I sent a request on May 24, 2018, highlighting points to Peter Neish related to his May 1, 2018 report and the Revenue Agency. For the five years, all I have gotten is replies saying that the report was 100% accurate.

That is why I requested a copy of the rules and guidelines and procedures as to how you determine whether information in a report is accurate so that it can be released as an official report.

Mr Donnelly did not provide me with what I asked for as the guidelines and related to site visits did not address the issues of including information in a report without appropriate evidence to support statements in the report and the fact that Peter Neish did not even walk the full watercourse down to the River as he would have noticed the DAM/FORD/BRIDGE that did not have a pipe under to allow the water in the watercourse to continue to flow down to the River.

It was only when I highlighted it in July 2018 that the DFI River Agency realized it existed but would not agree that it would block the flow and cause a backup of water to find other routes, which was given to the River Agency in a video that showed the problem with the watercourse on my property as well as water flowing between my property and the field of my neighbor stating that the of water was from my septic tank, when it was due to the bridge in the watercourse to allow horses to travel between 2 fields.

The fact that Peter Neish never requested an official report from my insurance company who carried out the investigation while he was there on my property on two occasions, highlights there are issues related to your policies and procedures. His report was written and he referenced issues, points that he stated related to the investigation by the insurance contractors, which was not accurate.

Doing my complaint on August 22, under your complaint’s procedure, I had an opportunity to have a meeting and I decided to have the meeting on my property with a representative from MLA Emma Little-Pengelly to ensure that there were people not related to myself or my neighbors, who also knew about some of the issues that had been left out of the report.

Note of Site Meeting on 22/08/2022 at 2pm

Location: Mr Clark’s residence
Attendee’s:
Mr Alistair Payne (Area Engineer)
Mrs Ceira McGurnaghan (Note taker)
Mr Reginald Clark (Land Owner)
Mrs Hilary Clark (Land Owner)
Mr James Tinsley (Alderman )

During the meeting, my final question was to answer to provide evidence that Peter Neish did carry out the full watercourse investigation and walked the full watercourse as if he did, he would have seen the water blocked due to the BRIDGE installed in the watercourse that was in the field going down to the river.

The DFI River representative, Mr Alistair Payne (Area Engineer) stated that he had seen evidence to support that Peter Neish had carried out the full investigation and I asked him to provide me with this evidence.
Conveniently, the notetaker, Mrs Ceira McGurnaghan (Note taker) did not include my request nor did she include Mr Alistair Payne reply.
But Mr James Tinsley (Alderman ), who represented MLA Emma Little-Pengelly did hear my request and his reply.
From: James Tinsley <[email address]>
Sent: 03 November 2022 16:09
To: [email address]
Subject: Re: FW: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues
Reginald

I do remember you asking about the evidence regarding someone walking the full watercourse back in 2018 but I cannot remember the name of the person.

Kind Regards
James

Alderman James Tinsley
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Killultagh Ward
Mob: 07866266294
Therefore, with all of the civil servants working in Northern Ireland, which is more than in the UK based on the population, one would think that a simple request from a member of the general public to provide evidence to support an official report would not tale over 5 years and have to request the Public Ombudsman’s Office to be involved, in which they rubber stamped every thing instead of carrying out their duty of ensuring public organizations are treating the general public fairly shows that these organizations are not looking after the interests of the general public.
Now, having to request information under the FIO and also with the Information Commissioner’s Office, when this simple request should not have been addressed by the DFI River Agency has wasted the time of people in all of these organizations as well as myself.
Accepting that there are some mistakes in the report shows professionalism as continuing to come up with excuses and trying to overload one person in the general public to drop the request is not going to happen.

Yours sincerely,

REGINALD CLARK

Dear DfI Information Management Unit,

From: James Tinsley <[email address]>
Sent: 03 November 2022 16:09
To: [email address]
Subject: Re: FW: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues

Reginald

I do remember you asking about the evidence regarding somone walking the full watercourse back in 2018 but I cannot remember the name of the person.

Kind Regards
James

Alderman James Tinsley
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Killultagh Ward
Mob: 07866266294

In line with the new GDPR, if you no longer wish us to hold any of your personal information, please inform us by email or telephone.
________________________________________
From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: 03 November 2022 15:21
To: James Tinsley
Subject: FW: FW: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues

Hello James,

Could you get back to me on the meeting that occurred on August 22, 2022 and the email below.

Do you remember me asking about the evidence regarding Peter Neish walking the full watercourse during his investigation in 2018 and Mr. Alistair Payne, the DFI River Agency Area Engineer stated that he had seen evidence to support the report and I asked him to provide me with it as I requested it in an email on May 24, 2018 and have yet to receive it.

I am still waiting for that information.

Regards;

Reginald Clark

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email address]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022, 16:34
Subject: FW: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues
To: <[email address]>
Cc: <[email address]>

Hello James,

I would like to know if you remember me asking about the evidence related to Peter Neish walking the entire watercourse and Alistair Payne said that he had seen the evidence. Note below that I asked in an email on September 5, 2022 before the notes were sent on September 28, 2022.

Unfortunately, the other witness who heard my request outside of my wife was Noel Carlson and he has passed away as I attended his funeral today.

I was glad that Emma Little Pengelly allowed you to attend the meeting in her place as I wanted an independent person to see the excuses and poor management that has occurred for the last 5 years.

From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: 05 September 2022 13:19
To: 'Shivers, Niall' <[email address]>; [email address]; [email address]; [email address]
Cc: 'McKenna, Niall' <[email address]>; 'McKee, Jonathan' <[email address]>; 'Hanna, Aidan' <[email address]>; 'DONALDSON, Jeffrey' <[email address]>; [email address]
Subject: RE: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues.
Importance: High

To Gary Quinn,

Again, in looking over all of your replies, whereby you conveniently continue to provide no evidence to support claims that Peter Neish carried out a fair and thorough investigation of the watercourse problem, you dumped all of the so-called files related to the correction of the rerouted watercourse under the EIR Request DFI/2020-0272 and Mr. Alistair Payne stated on August 22, 2022 that he had seen evidence to support that Peter Neish carried out a full walkthrough of the watercourse. I asked the note taker, Ms Ceira McGurmaghan to include in her notes that I want to see this evidence and I have 3 witnesses who will confirm this request. Therefore, I hope that when I receive the notes that will be forwarded to all who attended the meeting on August 22, 2022, it has not been changed to exclude that request.

I have also asked for videos and photos that are date stamped to determine if they should have been included in the dumped files.
I am providing photos taken in March 2018 and April 2018 that should have been part of Peter Neish’s walkthrough of the watercourse as it would have shown him that the blocked watercourse in the field of 23 Ballykeel Road was a major part of the water problem on their property.

I also took photos this weekend due to major rain and you will see no water standing on my property and water standing in the paddock/menage.

All of my data is date stamped.
Based on the request to the River Agency below, how can the River Agency reply to the request stating the following;

• I can confirm that DfI Rivers holds the attached information related to your request.
You did not hold information related to flooding due to my septic tank as you have stated repeatedly that you did not make that statement. This shows that you did make that statement.

So, you are contradicting yourself based on your letter to me on July 6, 2022.

EIR Request (received 05 October 2020) - Reference: DFI/2020-0272 Could you please forward me all records on the flooding we had due to the septic tank at a named address on Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough, overflowing into ourselves? After some thought we have now made the decision that we will file a claim for damages and I would like to forward these to loss adjuster.
Response (issued 02 November 2020) Thank you for your email of 5 October 2020, requesting under the Environmental Information Regulations, information DfI Rivers holds in relation to a septic tank overflowing into your property. I can confirm that DfI Rivers holds the attached information related to your request. Some of the requested information constitutes third party personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). A public authority may only release third party personal data if to do so would be fair, lawful and would meet the conditions in Schedule 2, 3 or 4 of the DPA. The Department may not disclose personal information to the public in contravention of any of the data protection principles (Article 5(1) General Data Protection Regulation or sections 34(1) and 85(1) DPA) and must consider all consequences of disclosure in each case.
From your letter to me on July 6, 2022:
Mr Neish's reference to the septic tank simply serves to point out the general location to which this illegally installed pipe was travelling. As previously stated, and to reiterate, the Department has never stated that your septic tank was the cause of the flooding problem which affected both your property and your neighbour's property in 2018.

I would also like to take this opportunity to advise you that a letter to you from Worthington Solicitors, dated 8 February 2022 and attached to your email of 8 June 2022 incorrectly quotes Mr Naish's report. The letter from Worthington Solicitors states that the rerouting of the watercourse was ,into your septic tank' when in actuality Mr Naish's report states that the watercourse was rerouted ,to or near to the septic tank'.

• So as I stated before, you continue to not provide any proof and now you can see that you are contradicting yourself , especially in your reply to the EIR Request and also the naming of the request:

o https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/pub...

looking forward to see the notes and excuses from the River Agency to not reply with evidence to support your position.

If they continue to use all of the EIR Request DFI2020-0272 files, which includes the poorly written report and the name of the request based on your written reply, you will have to defend it in court, not me as you will be called to do so by me.

Regards;

Reginald Clark

From: Hanna, Aidan <[email address]>
Sent: 28 September 2022 14:53
To: [email address]
Subject: Report of flooding at Ballykeel Road, Hillsborough in 2018 and other issues

Dear Mr Clark

Ref. No. : IN1-22-9975

Please find attached a copy of the notes of your meeting with officials on 22 August 2022 as requested in your email of 5 September 2022. The attached notes do not refer to a request from you at the meeting to see evidence to support that Mr Neish carried out a full walkthrough of the watercourse. Whilst your request was not recorded in the note of the meeting, the Department does not dispute that you made this request.

Regards,

Aidan

DfI Rivers
Aidan Hanna | Business Support Unit | 49 Tullywiggan Road, Loughry | Cookstown | BT80 8SG |
Int Extension (: 36290 | External Direct (: +44 (0) 28 86768290 | 07810070606 | Email : [email address] |

Please Proceed With Caution
This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-IT Helpdesk
________________________________________
As this e-mail may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named, or the person responsible for delivering the message to the above named, delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, nor used by, anyone other than the above named. We will not accept any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in such messages are not given or endorsed by the Council, unless otherwise indicated in writing by an authorised representative independent of such messages. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. You should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail to a person within the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed necessary by the organisation. We cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended, thus it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. Any personal data provided by you will be processed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulations (2018) and the UK Data Protection Act (2018), for further details please view the Privacy Notice on our website. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this e-mail (or any response to it) under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation, unless the information in it is covered by an exemption.

Yours sincerely,

REGINALD CLARK

Dear DfI Information Management Unit,

To Hugh Murnaghan and Paul McGrory,

Why are you continuing to ask me to contact different government organizations for information that your department has and have refused to provide answers for over the last four years? As the request relates to INFORMATION MANAGEMENT and Paul McGrory is the Head of the Information Management Department, I would think that part of your role and responsibility would be to ensure that all information related to DFI is accurate and if questions come up related to it not being accurate, you would want any issues corrected. But your actions are typical of civil servants as you think that the general public are ignorant and cannot question government departments.
Why Are you asking me to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, when you know that they will state that it is not related to incorrect use of data from your department.
The issue is related to the report from the DFI River Agency that was written on May 1, 2018 by Peter Neish related to a problem with a watercourse that is on my property and questions that I raised related to several statements in the report that I felt were not accurate and DFI River Agency nor Peter Neish did not have evidence to support. An email was sent on May 24, 2018 requesting evidence to support some of the claims in the report and to this date, I have not gotten documentation to support the inaccurate statements in the report.
On March 18, 2018, there was a major rainstorm and I saw a large flow of water in my back yard and I thought it was a busted water pipe, but I carried out a thorough investigation and determined the water was coming from the road and flowing in the watercourse down the side of my house.
I took videos and photos of the problems and provided them to the DFI River Agency.
I contacted the NI Water Service and they told me that I should contact the Road Service as it was not their responsibility. The Road Service did investigate the problem and stated that after the water leaves the road and enters the watercourse, the River Agency has responsibility.
I contacted the River Agency on March 28, 2018 and they did not come to my property until April 4, 2018 to address the problem.
I stated to my neighbour at 23 Ballykeel Road that I was in contact with the River Agency on March 28, 2018 and she contacted the River Agency and they came out on March 29. 2018, whereby she provided them with statements and a couple of photos insinuating that my septic tank and the watercourse problem had been flooding their property.
Peter Neish included her comments and her photos implying the watercourse problem in his report. I have asked for date stamps on those photos to support that the photos relate to the March 18, 2018 watercourse problem as the problem was not seen by Peter Neish, the engineer for the DFI River Agency.
To this date, the DFI River Agency have not replied to my request regarding the following related to the potential issues in the report;
• Provide date and time stamps of the 2 photos given to Peter Neish and DFI to support the claim that standing water on their property relates to the watercourse problem that I reported and only occurred on one day, March 18, 2018.
• Provide evidence to support statements in the official report related to the investigation by my insurance contractor, when Peter Neish nor the DFI River Agency requested copies of the final report by Auger Company, even though I did provide Peter Neish with email communication between myself and Auger on April 4, 2018, whereby Auger stated that the blockage or change in the route of the watercourse was probably due to the roots of the Conifer trees since the watercourse had been working fine since 1979 until March 2018.
• Peter Neish included statements from 23 Ballykeel Road but ignored statements from 19A Ballykeel Road and 19A Ballykeel Road assisted 21 Ballykeel Road with equipment to build the house and the watercourse.
o Unfortunately, Noal Carson has passed away but his wife and sons will state that the statement that the watercourse was diverted by my actions is not true as no work has been done in my backyard until July 2018 to replace the incorrect 4-inch pipe that was installed in the watercourse by the original owner of the house.
On April 4, 2018, Peter Neish attended an investigation by my insurance contractor. It was determined that some of the water from the watercourse was flowing in my backyard but due to the fact that NO WORK HAD BEEN DONE since it was installed in 1979, the problem was due to the incorrect piping for the watercourse after it was changed from a closed concrete culvert to a 4-inch pipe. The contractor suggested that the Conifer Tree Roots blocked the watercourse pipe that had been working from 1979 to 2018.
The report on May 1, 2018 was written without a request for a final report from the insurance contractor nor the email communication between myself and the insurance contractor that I provided to Peter Neish as I disputed some points in the report on May 24, 2018, in an email to Peter Neish.
Because the DFI River Agency has not addressed my request to provide evidence to support several points in the official DFI River Agency report, I contacted the Public Ombudsman’s Office and they have NOT CARRIED OUT their duties to request the DFI River Agency to address the issues of the official report as they stated that I have to take this forward for a Judicial Review against them.
This is typical government tactic to make it difficult to question government organizations.
So, the following government organizations and individuals are involved in a simple request to the DFI River Agency to provide information to support their official report:

• DFI HEAD OFFICE
• DFI RIVER AGENCY
• PUBLIC OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE
• FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
• EQUALITY COMMISSION
• INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE
• SIR JEFFREY DONALDSON
• MLA EMMA -LITTLE PENGELLY
• U S CONSULATE OFFICE
So, now I am getting the Head of the DFI Information Management and his subordinate to have me waste my time contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Is it acceptable to include information in an official report that is also posted on the web due to a EIR Request that has an incorrect description based on the requestor and the DFI reply says that they have information based on the request when they do not?
The DFI River Agency did not investigate my septic tank and to change one word to include the word ALLEGED is not acceptable.

On August 22, 2022, the DFI River Agency attended a final meeting related to the issues I have had regarding the watercourse problems and mainly the issues with some parts of the report. Note that the problem was corrected, which was mainly to replace the 4-inch pipe in the watercourse. a video was provided to the DFI River Agency which shows water flowing in 2 different directions and the water flowing between the boundary of my backyard and the adjacent of 23 Ballykeel Road could only occur due to the watercourse in the adjacent field being blocked and that was due to the FORD/BRIDGE/DAM that did not have a pipe installed to allow the water in the watercourse to flow down to the river and Peter Neish and the DFI River Agency did not know about it until I highlighted in in July/August 2018. It was not mentioned in the May 1, 2018 report, even though the video that shows the dual flow of water was given to the DFI River Agency.
It was clear that Peter Neish did not know about the blockage due to the FORD/DAM as he did into walk the full watercourse. I asked Mr. Alistair Payne about this in the meeting and he stated to me that he had seen evidence to prove that the full water course had been checked. I asked him to provide me with this evidence that he said he had seen and I had independent witnesses such as Alderman James Tinsley, who represented MLA Emma Little Pengelly at the meeting and the notetaker conveniently left all of this out of the notes. My request was left out and Mr. Payne’s reply was also left out of the notes.

My request for the DFI River Agency to provide me with information to support statements in an official report is not going away.

Yours sincerely,

REGINALD CLARK

Dear DfI Information Management Unit,

Hello Hugh Murnaghan,

Regarding your reply below, what would anyone expect regarding an INTERNAL REVIEW on THEMSELVES. One would want a internal review to be carried out by an INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION.
An internal review should look at all of the information objectively and that cannot happen when you are looking at yourself.
What is the role of the Information Management Unit of the DFI as I assumed it was to ensure the accuracy of information that comes from any areas of the DFI?
So you have stated what your role is not in this request for information, but you have not stated what your role is.

Why would I need to consider making an EIR Request when the EIR Request that was made by my neighbour had a description that was false and the DFI River Agency replied that they had information regarding the false statement. The DFI reply specifically stated they had information regarding flooding due to my septic tank when their report and communication stated that my neighbour would not allow the Auger Insurance contractor to check my septic tank as the soakaway was in the field of my neighbour.
SO, HOW CAN THE DFI EIR REQUEST MAKER THAT STATEMENT?
You keep asking me to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office when you know they will not even look at the complaint.

Let ‘s see if you can answer the simple question of what the role of the INFORMATION MANAGEMENT UNIT is.

Regards;

Reginald Clark

Yours sincerely,

REGINALD CLARK