Employent Tribunal Claims

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

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal claims RBWM had made against them from 31 March 2008 to 31 April 2009.

Please identify what type of claims they were (if any).

Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full Employment Tribunal hearing.

What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim,until its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April 2009.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Miss Wendy Wilson

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

Please cancel this request. the dates are incorrect.

Yours faithfully,

Wendy Wilson

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

A friend of mine made this FOI request on my behalf that was given reference number: FO163647.

Wendy Wilson did not cancel this request at all and this causes serious question as to why this Website has allowed this action to be implemented, where there is now a fraudulent 13 December 2011 message from Wendy Wilson that was never made.

This FOI was in fact responded to by RBWM and was given the reference number FO163647 by Martin Tubbs of RBWM. I have downloaded the full sequence of information that pertains to this request that it appears WDTK have allowed RBWM to alter; claiming that Wendy Wilson cancelled this Request on 13/12/11 when she never did.

This has been done to HIDE the RBWM Responses.

RBWM replied to this request on 16/12/11, that I (Maxine Jackson) annotated myself on 23/12/11.

On 23/12/11 RBWM referred to Case: 2702264/2008 as having been a claim that was amalgamated into a 2009 claim that filed in September 2009. But the claim that this 2008 DDA claim was amalgamated into, had actually been officially withdrawn under Rule 25 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, which meant that by the date it had been withdrawn (which was 30/10/09) it became defunct as a live claim.

Yet on 23/12/11 when Martin Tubbs of RBWM made his response to this Freedom of Information Act Request that withdrawn 2009 claim was still being claimed as the claim that Case: 2702264/2008 had been attached to.

The following response was made to made to Martin Tubbs's 23/12/10 Response:

Dear Martin Tubbs

"Thank you for confirming that Case: 2702264/2008 did not reach it's full hearing date until March 2010, which was 1-year 5-months and 1-day from when that claim was submitted (or 17-months rounded down)."

This Reply also stated:

"Am I therefore right in assuming that an employee of RBWM, who had raiused a claim of Disability Discrimination that was failed at the Reading Employment Tribunl in September 2008, that did not reach its full hearing for 17-months - until March 2010, that the same person was dismissed by RBWM 'before that person's 2008 Disability Discrimination claim reached its March 2010 hearing?"

And the answer from Martin Tubbs was 'Yes'.

As previoulsy advised the original request has been downloaded in its entirity and I question why this Website has chosen to place a fraudulent 13/12/11 message on this request, that Wendy Wilson did not make that falsely claims she had withdrawn this FOI request?

This request was originally given the reference number quoted above (FO163647) that now does not come up at all on this WDTK website.

It is all very disturbing to see WDTK 'assisting' RBWM in getting away with their dubious practises.

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I apologize for the typing mistakes in my previous annotation, what should have been written was:

"Am I therefore right in assuming that an employee of RBWM who had raised a claim of Disability Discrimination that was filed at the Reading Employment Tribunal in September 2008, that did not reach its full hearing for 17-months - until March 2010, that the same person was dismissed by RBWM 'before that person's 2008 Disability Discrimination claim reached its March 2010 hearing?"

On this website on 13 December 2011 was the following information:

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your information request - it has been allocated reference FO163647.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public authorities with 20 working days to process requests - this period expires on 13 January 2012.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The REPLY was then posted by Martin Tubbs on 16 December 2011.

I will email WDTK after making this annotation (that I am making at 08:33 on 02/04/12) to ask why there is now a fraudulent message from Wendy Wilson now reading on this Website for 13/12/11 that claims that Wendy Wilson cancelled this FOI request request, which is totally and entirely untrue.

It was replied to and the original RBWM Response and all related data - has been downloaded in its entirety.

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I confirm that I have just sent the following email to the WDTK team at 08.56 on 02/04/12:

Dear WDTK

A friend of mine named Wendy Wilson made a Freedom of Information Act request using your Website; her request was made on 13/12/11 and was sent to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. She used my computer to make that request, as she was staying with me at the time and in any event, doe snot have a computer of her own.

On the same day (13/12/11) she was sent a message from RBWM’s Martin Tubbs and it was in that message that she was given the reference number referred to above.

A reply was then made by Martin Tubbs (for RBWM) on 16 December 2011; that response has been downloaded, together with all other details that pertain to this Freedom of Information Act request, that goes over several pages.

However, at today’s date (02/04/12) there is a fraudulent message on WDTK purporting to have been written by Wendy Wilson on 13/12/11, that states she wanted to cancel that request. Also, when you search for the reference number that this Freedom of Information Act request was given by Martin Tubbs of RBWM (on 13/12/11) it comes up as null and void.

The fraudulent message that reads on the WDTK website at today’s date states the following (see between the two horizontal lines):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Wendy Wilson
13 December 2011

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Please cancel this request. the dates are incorrect.

Yours faithfully

Wendy Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the following FOI Response was made by RBWM on 16 December 2011:

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
16 December 2011

ET claims 01/04/08 to 31/03/09

Wendy Wilson made this Freedom of Information request to Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing on behalf of Chris Daniels to respond to your information
request - your request and our responses are below:

Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal claims RBWM had made against
them from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 – 5

Please identify what type of claims they were (if any) - 4 x Disability
Discrimination and 1 x Unfair Dismissal

Please identify which of those claims (if any) progressed into a full
Employment Tribunal hearing - 2 x Disability Discrimination

What was the length of time from the submission of any such claim until
its hearing date (please identify even if this extends beyond 1 April
2009 - 11 months and 5 months

This concludes your request.

If you require translation of the information you have been sent please do
not hesitate the contact us.

If you are unhappy with the information we have provided in response to
your request please write to:

Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road
Maidenhead
SL6 1RF

or send an e-mail to [email address].uk

We are proud to be one of the leading authorities in England for
consistently responding to information requests within the 20 working days
set down by statute. Information about our performance and summaries of
requests received can be found on our website:
[1]http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_informati...
We are keen to hear about your experience with the Information Management
Team here at the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and look forward to
receiving any comments you have about the way your information request was
processed.
Please send any feedback to the Information Management Team Manager either
by e-mail [email address] or in writing to the address above.
Yours sincerely
Chris Daniels
Information Management Officer
Legal Services
Resources Department
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St.Ives Road
Maidenhead SL6 1RF
01628 796029

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you please explain why WDTK have done this?

Which is basically giving out fraudulent information to the Public by having assisted RBWM by placing the fraudulent message on WDTK claiming that message to have been made by Wendy Wilson; when the truth of the situation is, that this request was actually REPLIED TO?

Thank you

Ms M Jackson

J. Jefferson left an annotation ()

What makes you think that RBWM, or even the website, have anything to do with that cancellation request?
I would think that if it wasn't placed there by the person whose name is on it, it was probably done by the only other person who probably had access to the log in details.
Remind me, whose computer was used to place the original request?

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr/Ms Jefferson

I really shouldn't worry yourself over silly issues.

It was a simple mistake, that's all; the correct request is placed at FOI063647.

i.e. letter 'I' not the number '1'.

We 'all' make mistakes, but only 'some' of us admit to doing so - others just tell lies and say that 'it' did not really happen.

I trust you are having a nice day.

I am.

Regards

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

You should try not to concern yourself Mr/Ms Jefferson.

We all make mistakes, and the correct message reads under FOI63647 (i.e. the letter 'I' and not the number '1'.

But when we make mistakes, only some of us own up to that, while others ...............

............ well, you've been following me around for so long I have no need to go into any further detail.

And thank you for being so concerned over my 'mental health' in your annotation dated 30 January 2012 (that ha snow been removed), but I'm fine.

I hope you haven't felt the need to contact a 'doctor' recently, and I am sure we can all remain polite to each other on this Public website.

Regards

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

J Jefferson made the following annotation on 30 January 2012 at 21:09:32.118109 (against a freedom of information that has now been hidden)

"I think its about time the people who run this website took some responsibility for the duty of care they have towards somebody whose mental health appears to be declining as a result of usage of this site. The suspicions of corruption and conspiracy just leads to further suspicion, and then to even further suspicion until an individual has driven themselves quite mad. This website is doing nothing to discourage that. I would like to know how much of my taxes are going to waste being paid to people having to reply to others arguing about whether a letter was sent on the 7th or the 8th. I'm so not looking forward to the time I really need to rely on certain parts of the civil service if they are having to spend their time and resources I've paid them for to justify to other individuals, for example, why their post is not going through the correct letterbox. It makes me worried for myself and the people I care for."

An annotation suggesting I am perhaps 'delusional'?

Made on 30 January 2012?

By a person who 'cares for others'?

"It makes me worried for myself and the people I care for."

Maybe even a doctor?

Worried about someone's 'mental health'?

Someone who posts on Twitter?

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Scary ..........