Forged court computer record

fred robinson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office

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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Attorney General's Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that you are in possession of a forged court computer record from the Liverpool county court.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email to the Attorney Generals Office, making a
request under the Freedom of Information Act.

You requested:

"Will you confirm or deny that you are in possession of a forged
court computer record from the Liverpool county court."

From our preliminary assessment, it is clear that we will not be able to
answer your request without further clarification.

The Attorney Generals Office requires further information in order to
identify and locate the information you have asked for. In particular,
it would be useful to know, which document/s you are referring to, the
date of this document/s, the subject matter of this document/s.

Once you have clarified your request, I will be able to begin to process
your request. If I do not receive clarification within three months
your request will be considered to have lapsed. (Under section 1(3) of
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a public authority need not
comply with a request unless any further information reasonably required
to locate the information is supplied).

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

The subject matter is claim 5LV53314 the facts of which were notified to the Attorney General in 2006 and 2007, and the computer records sent within correspondence and copy correspondence to: The Lord Chancellor, The Home Secretary, The Lord Chef Justice none which, were not responded to or acknowledged.

Has my FOI request been brought to the attention of the Attorney General.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email

Unfortunately the information you have provided is not enough for me to
look fully into your request.

Could you please clarify what the claim matter is regarding, whom the
court records are relating to, and if you have them the dates
correspondence was sent to the Attorney Generals Office and what matters
they are raising.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

The forged and genuine court computer records were sent to the Attorney General by recorded delivery (DW 1746 8476 4GB) on December 7th 2007 after being filed at the Liverpool county court on December 6th 2007 and showing the following alterations:

Genuine Court Computer Information:

22-JUN-2005 N17 INTERLOCUTORY JGMT

05-AUG-2005 LETTER TO DEFENDANT (SOLS) RTD AS JMT ENTERED

Forged Court Computer Information:

22-JUN-2005 HEARING

05-AUG-2005...NO ENTRY WAS MADE...

The defendant subsequently, after the judge had ordered the Defendant to remove from his defence the contention that i had lived in a "mid terrace location in Lime Grove".

Had my judgement worth £50,000 to £70,000 set aside in my absence by:

perjured evidence

a false witness statement

the unfounded and fallacious contention of statute barring and, that he had not had the opportunity to defend the claim which, had been served by the court after judicial scrutiny and not acknowledge or defended within the 28 days allowed by the CPR, and

at the same time as doing all this, persuaded the high court to issue a two year restraining order against me which is ruthlessly upheld by the court and is something which, the Attorney General and other senior members of the government, are duty bound by their office, to prevent from happening by keeping the courts independent and make such things impossible.

The above filed information was also sent to the Lord Chancellor on December 7th 2007 by recorded delivery (DW 1746 8475 5GB) who, like th Attorney General did not reply.

This information was also filed and copied to the Defendants solicitors and the Judge who set aside my Judgement.

One or both of these computer records should/will be available from the Liverpool county court as public records, or do you wish me to send copies of them to the Attorney General again.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email making a request under the Freedom of
Information Act: You have requested:

"Will you confirm or deny that you are in possession of a forged court
computer record from the Liverpool county Court"

We will write to you again once your request has been considered. We
are aiming to send you a response, 20 working days from the day after we
received your request, in accordance with Section 10 of the Freedom of
Information Act.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I trust you have now confirmed, and have copies of the forged court computer records and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson

Please find attached a copy of our response to your Freedom of
Information request.

Regards

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

<<FOI - Fred Robinson.pdf>>

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross

Shall I send them to the Attorney General again as they may be in in another office ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear JAMES ROSS

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT SEFTON KNEW IN FEBRUARY 2003:

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR JANUARY 24TH 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Freedom of Information
legislation now in force. I request copies of ALL my correspondence
to the Council to check what you have and have not received to
compare it with the information you send. I request ALL information
you hold on any claims and settlement of claims held by your
Finance Department and allegedly made by myself.

LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL 1ST FEBRUARY 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Data Protection legislation now
in force. I request copies of all my correspondence with regard to
claims and settlement of claims held by your Finance Department,
also information of how the alleged settlement of a claim,
regarding my gable wall in 1997, referred to by Mr Barr on January
2000, (Ref: GRB/JBJ/HSG1187) was made and to whom ? I have none of
this correspondence. I also request a copy of a letter from the
Council to Maritime Housing stating I had made a claim for damage
to my gable wall in 1993.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS FEBRUARY 8TH 2003

With regard to my request for ALL information I am entitled to
under the DATA PROTECTION ACT I enclose a cheque for £10 which I
believe is the correct fee. I especially request that ALL
information regarding claims against the Council and their
settlement be forwarded to me with any correspondence regarding
these claims that was sent to third parties and any notes which
were added to files or computer records.

LETTER TO SEFTON FEBRUARY 14TH 2003

Will you write to me and confirm that you have received both my
application and payment of £10 for information under the DATA
PROTECTION ACT, dated February 8th 2003.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 20TH 2003

I asked not only for information held by the finance department. I
asked for ALL information I was entitled to under the data
protection act to be provided. This means All information not only
that held with regard to claims held by the Finance Department as
you appear to believe. I have been told by the Finance department a
summons was issued against me regarding Council Tax;- Summons No
2340104 at - The Law Court, Albert Road, Southport. I have written
to the court and they state "the summons No you have quoted does
not relate to one of our cases". Consequently I will not be
attending court.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 22ND 2003

I formally request that SMBC's letter to MHA, dated between 1st and
10th February 1999, be provided to me as part of my request, and
payment, for information under the Data Protection Act. I believe
that the Council has committed breaches of The Data Protection Act
and ask that you give a reasoned respond to the following to
explicate the matter.

Background

1. In about June 1993 I visited Sefton Councils (SMBC) Planning
department and saw plans for a proposed development of a new
housing estate on land adjacent to my property. This was proposed
to occur after the demolition of buildings adjoining my property
then in situ on the land. These plans show the gardens of the
proposed houses extending to my gable wall - evidently after the
removal of a nib wall and footings.

2. In August and September 1993 I expressed concern in writing to
SMBC I stated it appeared, from the plans, a nib wall and old
footings abutting my gable wall were to be removed during the
forthcoming development. On October 1st 1993, SMBC (Mr Barr) told
me the nib wall and footings abutting my gable wall should not be
interfered with during the development. This fully resolved the
matter.

3. On March 7th 1994 SMBC (Mr Barr) arranged to survey and
photographed my property. The nib wall is shown on some of these
photographs. This survey does not record any damage, cracking or
deterioration to my gable wall. At the outset of demolition of
buildings adjoining my property - [which occurred between March
14th and April 6th 1994] - the nib wall and footings were
photographed in situ.

4. On April 6th and 21st 1994 I reported to SMBC that my property
had been damaged during the demolition of the adjoining buildings -
[It was acknowledged on April 15th 1994 (pp Mr Barr), the one dated
April 21st 1994 was not.] There was no mention of demolition of a
nib wall in this correspondence. - [The nib wall was witnessed by
SMBC's contractors in situ on April 21st 1994.]

5. On July 4th 1998 I wrote to my solicitors reporting latent
damage to my property due to the demolition of the nib wall. This
damage was located at the point where the nib wall had been.

6. On January 27th 1999 I wrote to Maritime Housing Association
(MHA) regarding my property.

7. On February 1st 1999: MHA's Director of Development and Property
Services. (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that MHA's records showed the
land had been transferred to them in "mid 1995" and, citing SMBC as
their consultants, stated he would write to SMBC regarding the nib
wall. - [Between February 1st and 10th 1999 SMBC had clearly
responded to MHA.]

8. On February 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle,) after receiving
correspondence from SMBC, wrote to me with regard to the nib wall,
that. "Matters surrounding this particular wall began as early as
1993."

9. On March 4th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that ;- It was
Fawley Construction Ltd - MHA's building contractor. - "Who was
responsible for our development at Kepler Street."

We (MHA and Fawley) are "all convinced that the "nib" wall was not
in existence when we took possession of the site." - [Possession
has been given by MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994.]

That I should be aware that MHA. "Were not responsible for the
demolition of the maisonette blocks which previously occupied the
site, following demolition by Sefton Council."

That "On the evidence I have it would appear, therefore, that the
"nib" wall was removed during the demolition contract." - [This
evidence would appear to be, based on SMBC\s letter of February
1999 to MHA attesting that SMBC were responsible for the damage to
my property caused by the demolition of the nib wall and, had
demolished it and the adjoining buildings in 1993 and, had owned it
until "mid 1995."]

That "I am taking the opportunity of copying this letter to Mr G
Barr at Sefton Council, so that he is fully aware of the
correspondence that has passed between us."

10. On March 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) confirms that; "The
demolition of the maisonette blocks was carried out, under contract
by Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. I have previously confirmed that
this Association took possession of a cleared site."

"I am aware now of the nature of your enquiry, in that you are
alleging the "nib" wall was demolished after the site was cleared."

"Once again I am taking the opportunity of copying both your letter
and my response to George Barr at Sefton and also to Fawley
Construction." - [Thus SMBC (Mr Barr) knew in March 1999 that I was
alleging the nib wall was not demolished during the demolition of
buildings adjoining my Property in 1993 and, MHA were holding SMBC
responsible for its demolition prior to their possession.]

11.On October 22nd 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote stating he had.
"Found a letter from Sefton, written to me in February 1999 in
which it is stated;" - [From the above it was apparently written by
Mr Barr.]

"The whole issue of damage to your gable wall appears to go back to
1993."

"That you had a claim against Sefton Council at that time." [i.e.
In 1993.]

That this claim was due to. "Cracking and deterioration of your
gable wall" which had occurred due to. "Demolition of adjoining
buildings".

This letter from MHS to myself quotes verbatim from my
correspondence with SMBC dated August and September 1993. This
correspondence was written solely regarding SMBC's apparent
proposal to demolish the nib wall and remove the footings. - [There
was no demolition adjoining my property in 1993. No mention of the
nib wall is made between 1994 and 1998.]

12. On November 24th 1999 SMBC's Director of Technical Services (Mr
Williams, Mr Barrs superior) states, regarding SMBC's
correspondence to MHA of February 1999 that;

"As the appointed agents of Maritime Housing in respect of the
redevelopment scheme we have a contractual obligation to provide
information to them in respect of work carried out on their behalf;
and also in respect of any matter material to their interest in the
land being developed."

"Mr Barr had, on behalf of Sefton merely complied with his
contractual obligations."

That this information was supplied by SMBC to MHA in "good faith."
- [I also refer you to correspondence to Messrs Barr, Williams and
Heywood, SMBC's CEO, dated respectively; Barr
16/10/99-30/10/99-6/12/99. Williams 29/11/99. Heywood 18/1/00.]

Conclusions

With regard to the above it appears that the Council have breached
the following Principles of "The Data Protection Act 1998." The
reference numbers I use in brackets below are from the December
2001 issue of the "Legal Guide to the Data Protection Act". I
presume you are is au fait with the above1998 Legal Guide.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent (3.1.5)
to disclose to MHA the personal date (2.2) contained in my letters
of 1993 to them.

(ii) That it was known to SMBC that the provision of this personal
data to MHA was regarded by myself as being prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data was not provided to MHA in a fair and lawful manner
(3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not protect my vital interests, in fact it
worked against them. This I stated to SMBC in November 1999.

(iv) That the data provided to a third party (MHA) was not provided
within a reasonable timescale (3.1.7.7)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had obtained the data in 1993 for
the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent proposed
demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This matter was
fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October 1st 1993.

(ii) The data was used for a different, incompatible, unfair and
unlawfully purpose (3.1. 4) when it was stated by SMBC to MHA in
February 1999 to have been the basis of a claim for damage to my
property in 1993 which had not occurred in 1993.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to MHA for.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a claim. This incorrect and misleading assertion
was not withdrawn by Mr Williams in November 1999 (3.4 [b].)

Fifth Principle: (3.5) The data was kept for longer that it was
necessary for the purpose it was provided for. - i.e. 6 years.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me.

Seventh Principle: (3.7) The data which was passed to MHA by SMBC
was done so in an unauthorised and unlawful manner.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 26TH 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th and 22nd
February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled to
under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with my previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurance managers AON.

Background 1. I have been notified by AON. (Mr Pearson, Claims
Adjuster) that, with regard to an "incident" dated January 1st
1994, a "public liability claim" (My Ref: W215732) was issued to
AON by SMBC. It is evident that this claim contained data which
caused AON to write to me advising me that I "seek legal advice in
connection with the same". This claim would appear to be connected
with damage to my property.

2. As January 1st 1994 was a bank holiday it is extremely unlikely
that any work was carried out on that day by SMBC - or anybody else
on its behalf - that would have given SMBC the legitimate reason to
send data, which identified me to AON, regarding the "incident"
alluded to and on which I should take - "legal advice."

3. Regarding the date of January 1st 1994, again, as it was a bank
holiday, there would have been no post that day and, therefore, it
may be that the claim for the "incident" had been delayed in the
Christmas post and, was the alleged claim notified to MHA in
February 1999 by SMBC as damage to my "gable wall," caused by the
"demolition of building adjoining my property in 1993".

4. If the "incident" reported to AON occurred on the land adjoining
my property, i.e. the Kepler Street site, and was that which
damaged my "gable wall" and was caused by the demolition of
"adjoining building in 1993" by SMBC. It is abundantly clear that,
that "incident" occurred prior to December 24th 1993 because, for
SMBC to make a legitimate public liability claim. This claim would
have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public liability
indemnity and any contractual obligation to AON - e.g. for any
claims regarding the land, a nib wall or my gable wall - ceasing on
December 24th 1993 and liability passing from SMBC to MHA on
[allegedly] December 24th 1993. [See letters to me from; MHA dated
February 1st 1999, Mr Williams dated September 26th 2000, Ms Swale
dated June 19th and August 8th 2001 and Mr Heywood dated May 1st
2002.]

I request that the data supplied to AON, which established January
1st 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent to me as part of
my request and payment for information under the Data Protection
Act.

Conclusion With regard to data supplied by SMBC to AON, which
clearly allowed AON to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached
The Date Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again
in brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to AON the personal data (2.2) [whether
true or false] to them.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to AON [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to AON by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) the data supplied to AON by SMBC [whether true or false,] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) If SMBC had obtained the data in 1993
for the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent
proposed demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This
matter was fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October
1st 1993.

(ii) If (i) above is true. The data was used for a different,
incompatible, unfair and unlawfully purpose (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to AON to have been the basis of a public liability
claim, which may have been for damage to my property in 1993. NB,
SMBC have not given me a reason for this claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to AON by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to SMBC for, i.e. the resolution of SMBC's intentions regarding the
nib wall and footings.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to AON by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a public liability claim.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 1ST 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th 22nd and
26th February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled
to under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurers Royal SunAlliance (RSA.)

Background

1. I have been notified by RSA of a "public liability claim" (Claim
Number RR98XN,) with regard to an "incident" dated January 17th
1994 and told it was being handled by RSA on behalf of SMBC. RSA
gave me no indication what this claim was for. It is evident that
this claim contained data which allowed RSA to write to me asking
me to advise them if I was "represented in this claim". This
"incident", i.e. event or occurrence, would appear to be connected
with damage to my property on January 17th 1994.

2. As January 17th 1994 was, and still is, given by RSA as the
"incident" date regarding a public liability claim against SMBC, it
would appear the data that was supplied to RSA came from SMBC and
allowed RSA to identify me from it.

3. The reason for this public liability claim to RSA is not known
to me, however, It is abundantly clear that, the "incident" - which
occurred on January 17th 1994 - could not be the subject of a
legitimate public liability claim by SMBC because, for SMBC to make
a legitimate public liability claim. The "incident" which caused
the claim would have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public
liability indemnity ceasing on December 24th 1993 and, as you know,
liability passing from SMBC to MHA on December 24th 1993. [See
SMBC's (Mr Heywood, CEO) letter to me dated May 1st 2002.]

I request that the data supplied to RSA, identifying me and,
causing January 17th 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent
to me as part of my request and payment for information under the
Data Protection Act.

Conclusion

With regard to data supplied by SMBC to RSA, which clearly allowed
RSA to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached The Date
Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again in
brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to RSA my alleged personal data (2.2)
[whether true or false] to them, i.e. that I had made a claim.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to RSA [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to RSA by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC [whether true or false] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had not obtained the data
regarding an incident dated January 17th 1994 from myself or
anybody representing me, therefore by that virtue it could not be
used in a compatible, fair and lawfully manner (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to RSA to have been the basis of a public liability
claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1.)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 5TH 2003

I write with regard to false and misleading and damaging
information supplied by the Council (SMBC) to Fawley Construction
Ltd and my former solicitors Canter Levin & Berg (CLB) between
January and March 1995 and Mr Benton MP on January 12th 2000.

1. In November 1991 a survey was conducted on my property by a
structural surveyor. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. He noted the gables structural fragility due to it
being free standing.

2. On February 7th and 16th 1994 I wrote to SMBC noting that
"demolition has now started on the development" and warning SMBC -
with regard to 1 above - of the problems demolition of adjoining
building may cause to my property especially my gable wall. This
demolition was the commencement of the first phase of the
development of the Kepler Street site. SMBC acknowledged my letters
on February 28th 1994.

3.On March 7th 1994 SMBC - as a result of 2 - above conducted a
survey of my property. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC knew the
development of the Kepler Street site had commenced prior to March
7th 1994 and at that time their own survey proved that there was no
damage to my gable wall.

4. Between March 14th and April 6th 1994 my property was damaged by
the demolition of buildings adjoining my property. On April 6th and
21st 1994 I notified and described this damage to SMBC's Technical
Services. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC's Technical
Services knew that my property was damaged by the demolition of
adjoining buildings between March 14th and April 6th 1994.

5. On April 15th 1994 SMBC's Technical Services acknowledged the
damage in 4 above. On October 24th 1994 I had this damage
quantified by a structural surveyor. Using SMBC's survey, taken on
March 7th 1994 during the development, he found some 30 changes for
the worse in my property. He recommended, in order to prevent a
claim, SMBC be contacted to ask them to provide a grant to repair
my property.

6. On January 26th 1995 my solicitors wrote to SMBC solely
regarding my structural surveyors report and my correspondence of
April 1994. Both regarding damage caused by the demolition of
buildings adjoining my property between March 14th and April 6th
1994. They suggested meeting to discuss the matter.

7. On February 17th 1995 SMBC (Mr Waddelow) wrote to CLB stating
that "damage if attributable to development is essentially a matter
between Householders and the developer concerned" The matter was
then passed to Technical Services. At this time Technical Services
had constructive knowledge my property had been damaged during
development due to my letters of April 1994.

8. Technical Services referred the matter to Fawley, MHA's
builders. Mr Fawley visited me on March 1st 1995 and states that
his visit was prompted by "a letter Sefton Council had received
from your solicitors dated 26th January 1995 regarding the
condition of your gable wall." He also states that I had told him
regarding my gable wall that "considerable worsening had occurred
during the demolition of the adjoining buildings." - There is no
mention of cracks to my gable wall in CLB's letter to SMBC of
January 26th 1995.

9. On March 7th 1995 Mr Barr stated to CLB that survey information
was taken of the property before redevelopment. In effect Mr Barr
is stating the survey by SMBC - taken on March 7th 1994 - had
occurred prior to development. - Mr Barr states that a claim for
damage to my gable wall was "settled off" in 1997.

11. On March 4th 1999, in a letter copied to Mr Barr, MHA (Mr
Quayle) states they have evidence that the demolition of buildings
adjoining my property occurred prior to their possession of the
site. - This evidence, which is clearly untrue, is confirmed by
MHA's CEO as being obtained by discussions with SMBC and Fawley and
from MHA's, SMBC's and Fawleys records. It will not be confirmed by
SMBC or Fawley.

Under 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the Data Protection Act - Date Subject
Notice. I request that SMBC ceases to process any information you
have obtained from Fawley Construction Ltd regarding myself as it
is untrue and misleading and has, and is likely to, cause me damage
and distress. I request that you notify all the other parties it
has been passed to that it is misleading and untrue. I also request
that SMBC ceases to process the information that a claim by me
regarding my gable wall was settled off in 1997 as it is untrue and
misleading, and inform my MP Mr Benton and any other parties it has
been passed to of this fact.

I request that you send me details of any further rights of access
to information under the Freedom of Information Act which may have
come into effect in March 2003, or where I may obtain a copy of
them.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 6TH 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Letter to Ms Elwood Seftons legal Director March 6th 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

I am unsure on what you are asking the Attorney Generals Office to do, as I do not know the full facts of your complaint I will try and help as much as I possibly can.

Your original email to this office was in regards to forged court documents, as you may already know this is a serious criminal offence and should be referred to your local police authority for investigation, I'm afraid this office is unable to assist in this matter.

If you have any queries regarding court documents then you should contact the Ministry of Justice as this falls under their jurisdiction, you can contact them via email at [email address].

The email you have sent below is in regards to your local council and various Data Protection Act requests you have made, again I'm afraid this office is unable to comment upon other government departments, if you have a grievance with Sefton council, you should either contact them direct or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government (email: [email address])and go through the proper complaints procedure. However if you are unhappy with the way your Data Protection Act requests have been dealt with, you should first ask for an internal review and if you are still unhappy with your response then you should contact the Information Commissioners Office (www.ico.gov.uk)

As the Attorney General is principal legal advisor to government, she is unable to offer legal advice or assistance to individuals, so you may wish to get in contact with your independent legal advisor for further assistance.

I hope this has been of some use to you.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

MY INFORMATION WAS NOT SENT TO YOUR OFFICE BUT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERALS CHAMBERS, IT WAS FILED AT COURT AND SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT SOLICITOR.

WILL YOU PLEASE CONFIRM WITH THE ATTORNEY'S CHAMBERS IF THEY HAVE HAD A COPY AND, THEN ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST.

THE ASSISTANCE I SOUGHT AT THE TIME FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERALS SOLICITOR WERE TO USE HIS POWERS UNDER THE CPR TO DETERMINE A LEGAL POINT OF EVIDENCE, I.E. FORGED COURT COMPUTER DOCUMENTS.

THAT LEGAL POINT WAS WITH REGARD TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SOLICITORS AND BARRISTERS SEEKING, IN BREACH OF THE CPR, A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ME TO AVOID PAYING ME SOME £50.000 TO £70.000 DAMAGES AND COSTS WHICH, WAS RECORDED ON THE GENUINE RECORD HELD BY MYSELF, BUT MISSING FROM THE FORGED VERSION.

THE DEFENDANTS CLEARLY HAD NO LOCUS STANDI IN THE MATTER AS THE COURTS COMPUTER, RECORDED AN N17 COURT ORDER BY A JUDGE GIVING JUDGEMENT IN MY FAVOUR MONTHS BEFORE HE ATTEMPTED TO RE-ENTER THE CASE.

IT MUST BE NOTED IT WAS THE COURT THAT USED ITS DISCRETION UNDER CPR PART 13 TO ALLOW THAT RE-ENTRY.

THIS ORDER ITSELF APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT ACKNOWLEDGED SERVICE OF MY CLAIM, AND NOT THE SERVICE AND DEFENCE OF IT.

I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER TO ASK HIS ADVICE AS TO WHO MAY HAVE TAMPERED WITH IT, THUS FAR HE HAS NOT RESPOND AND IT IS CLEAR WITHOUT HIS INFORMATION THE MATTER CANNOT PROCEED TO A CONCLUSION - A SITUATION I AM FAMILIAR WITH.

CONSEQUENT ON THE ATTORNEY'S SOLICITOR NOT RESPONDING, A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS OBTAINED AGAINST ME BY A FIRM OF BARRISTERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT ON THE BASIS THAT I HAD MADE VEXATIOUS APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT TO UPHOLD MY JUDGEMENT.

I, LIKE YOU, THE COURT AND THE DEFENDANTS BARRISTERS REALISE THAT FORGERY IS A CRIME, SURELY IT IS UP TO THEM, AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, TO REPORT SUCH THINGS TO THE POLICE ON FIRST BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT THEM, AFTER ALL THEY HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE AS ME BUT, MAY NOT SUFFER THE SAME TREATMENT BY MERSEYSIDE POLICE AS I DO WHEN I ATTEMPT TO REPORT ANY CRIME TO THEM, INCLUDING PERJURY BY THIS DEFENDANTS SOLICITORS AND WITNESSES IN THE FACE OF THE COURT.

MERSEYSIDE POLICE DO NOT RESPOND, OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME REPORTS I MAKE TO THEM AND, IN THE LIGHT OF THAT, I SUGGEST I SEND COPIES OF THE OFFENDING DOCUMENTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HAVE THE EVIDENCE SENT TO THE POLICE VIA HERSELF, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, COPY MY REPORT TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE OF THIS MATTER, TO HER.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

You say that you sent the court documents to the Attorney Generals Chambers, the Attorney General does not have a chamber, all documents that are sent to her are sent to the Attorney Generals Office, any post that is sent to her at the House of Lords is forwarded to here also. Please also note that court documents are not for this office to deal, they are a matter for the Ministry of Justice, and if received we would of transferred to them.

As I explained in my last email, you will need to contact the Courts and the Police yourself, this office is unable to intervene with another government department, if your local police station is not willing to help you, then you should either contact the Home Office as the police fall under their jurisdiction or the Independent Police Complaints Commission. This office has no role in the running of the police and I must inform you, that if you send any documents in relation to crime they will be returned you, it is for you to bring to the attention of the police, if what you say is true and the police are not accepting anything from you, then its down to you to take this further.

I must reiterate my point that the Attorney General is principal legal advisor to government and as such is unable offer legal advice or assistance to individuals, your request for a legal point of evidence is a request for legal advice and I have to inform you that this office is unable to help and that you should seek your own independent legal advice.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO THE ATTORNEY'S SOLICITOR IS FORWARDED TO THE MOJ ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

All correspondence that is sent to the Attorney Generals Office is
looked into, if the subject matter does not fall within the remit of
this office it is then transferred to the correct government department
for them to deal.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

ARE YOU CONFIRMING MY CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERALS CHAMBERS WAS SENT TO THE MOJ, GIVEN IT REPORTED, AND SUPPLIED EVIDENCE THE CRIME OF FORGERY BY HMCS STAFF AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

No documents have been received in this office, therefore nothing has
been transferred to the Ministry of Justice.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

ARE YOU DENYING THE ATTORNEY GENERALS CHAMBERS NEVER RECIEVED THE DOCUMENTATION BY RECORDED DELIVERY AND THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT PASSED TO THE MOJ ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson.

As I have already explained to you in previous correspondence, no
documents claiming to be forged have been received in this office. As I
informed you the Attorney General does not have a chamber, it may be the
case you sent these documents to the wrong address.

I'm afraid there is nothing further this office can do to assist you, I
have explained in previous correspondence what you need to do so I have
to inform you that any further correspondence you send, unless it raises
new issues will be read noted and filed without reply.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

THEY WERE SENT - SHALL I SEND THEM AGAIN ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Dear Mr Robinson

Please see my emails of 7/1 and 8/1 for assistance with your query.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I WILL SEND THEM AGAIN

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I WILL SEND THEM AGAIN

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

YOUR RESPONSE DECEMBER 8TH 2008"

"From our preliminary assessment, it is clear that we will not be able to
answer your request without further clarification. The Attorney Generals Office requires further information in order to identify and locate the information you have asked for. In particular, it would be useful to know, which document/s you are referring to, the date of this document/s, the subject matter of this document/s. Once you have clarified your request, I will be able to begin to process your request. If I do not receive clarification within three months your request will be considered to have lapsed. (Under section 1(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a public authority need not comply with a request unless any further information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied)."

YOUR RESPONSE DECEMBER 10TH 2008:

"Unfortunately the information you have provided is not enough for me to look fully into your request. Could you please clarify what the claim matter is regarding, whom the court records are relating to, and if you have them the dates correspondence was sent to the Attorney Generals Office and what matters they are raising."

YOUR RESPONSE DECEMBER 22ND 2008:

"Thank you for your email making a request under the Freedom of
Information Act: You have requested: "Will you confirm or deny that you are in possession of a forged court computer record from the Liverpool county Court" We will write to you again once your request has been considered. We are aiming to send you a response, 20 working days from the day after we received your request, in accordance with Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act."

YOUR E MAIL JANUARY 5TH 2009.

Ref: FOI/88/08
“I have considered your request and in accordance with section1 (1) a of the Act I can confirm that we do not hold any court records.”

YOUR RESPONSE JANUARY 7TH 2009"

"I am unsure on what you are asking the Attorney Generals Office to do, as I do not know the full facts of your complaint I will try and help as much as I possibly can. Your original email to this office was in regards to forged court documents, as you may already know this is a serious criminal offence and should be referred to your local police authority for investigation, I'm afraid this office is unable to assist in this matter. If you have any queries regarding court documents then you should contact the Ministry of Justice as this falls under their jurisdiction, you can contact them via email at [email address]. The email you have sent below is in regards to your local council and various Data Protection Act requests you have made, again I'm afraid this office is unable to comment upon other government departments, if you have a grievance with Sefton council, you should either contact them direct or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government (email: [email address])and go through the proper complaints procedure. However if you are unhappy with the way your Data Protection Act requests have been dealt with, you should first ask for an internal review and if you are still unhappy with your response then you should contact the Information Commissioners Office (www.ico.gov.uk) As the Attorney General is principal legal advisor to government, she is unable to offer legal advice or assistance to individuals, so you may wish to get in contact with your independent legal advisor for further assistance. I hope this has been of some use to you."

YOUR RESPONSE JANUARY 8TH 2009:

"You say that you sent the court documents to the Attorney Generals Chambers, the Attorney General does not have a chamber, all documents that are sent to her are sent to the Attorney Generals Office."

YOUR E-MAIL JANUARY 9TH 2009:

"All correspondence that is sent to the Attorney Generals Office is
looked into, if the subject matter does not fall within the remit of
this office it is then transferred to the correct government department
for them to deal with."

YOUR RESPONSE JANUARY 12TH 2009:

"No documents have been received in this office, therefore nothing has
been transferred to the Ministry of Justice."

YOUR RESPONSE JANUARY 13TH 2009:

"Please see my emails of 7/1 and 8/1 for assistance with your query."

YOUR E-MAIL JANUARY 5TH 2009:

Attorney Generals Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H ONF

Ref: FOI/88/08
“I have considered your request and in accordance with section1 (1) a of the Act I can confirm that we do not hold any court records.”

MAYBE THAT’S BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT TO THIS ADDRESS WHICH APPEARS TO BE UNKNOWN TO YOU?

The Legal Secretary to the Law Offices
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London
SW1E 6JP

I ALSO REFER YOU TO AL LETTER SENT BY ME TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS ON DECEMBER 3RD 2007 WHICH DOES NOT MENTION FORGED DOCUMENTS:

FAO Judge Fitzgerald Claim 6LV50680 and 5LV53314

The Legal Secretary to the Law Offices
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London
SW1E 6JP

Dear Sir or Madam

Request Under CPR 39.8.2 5 (i) and (ii) – Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v Maritime Housing Association

With regard to the above request and further correspondence sent to you, and the Defendant solicitors, I have received the enclosed letter regarding a Part 8 Claim, 6LV50690, requiring no defence and which was issued and served on February 3rd 2006 but, not acknowledged, however, the Defendant solicitor evidently now seeks to apply for a civil restraining order on December 13th 2007 in regard to this claim on the basis, inter alia, of his own rejected application in claim 5LV53314 dated July 29th 2005, which was rejected by the court on August 1st 2005 on the basis that judgement had been obtained against his client by myself.

Clearly this application is unfounded, an abuse of process, and should not be heard on December 13th 2007 as it has been struck out and costs awarded against me with regard to it. This being so, no further application can be made regarding it to restrain me in it. The Defendant solicitors act as if Judge Fitzgerald is their trained poodle, in court in my claim only to do tricks for them at their suggestion.

I also enclose a filed Freedom of Information request to Sefton Council regarding the ownership of land and liability for an alleged claim against the Council by myself dated 1993 and January 17th 1994 (which is fraudulent) for alleged damage to 19 Lime Grove in the 1960’s, prior to my occupation of it, by the (impossible) demolition of none existent buildings which alleged claim, was known to the Defendant from at least February 1999 as a claim made by myself in 1993 and is relied on in the Defendants defence as a claim made by myself when I allegedly lived in 9,11,or 13 Lime Grove, i.e., a “mid terrace location”, despite the evidence filed on February 2nd 2006 proving with OS maps from the 1850’s that no such adjoinment had ever existed - and therefore, the claim W215732 dated 1993 could not be the ‘font’ of any damage to 19 Lime Grove - and therefore, destroying Sefton Councils and Aon Corporations (verified) version of claim W215732 as being dated 1993 and January 1st 1994 and clearly based on the fallacy that 19 and 21 Lime Grove had been adjoined when I had lived in a “mid terrace location” in Lime Grove. I also enclose two letters from Maritime dated September 28th and October 5th 1999 (bold Added) in which they aver that:

“In March 1st 1994 when Fawley Construction took possession of the site, demolition work was still being undertaken by Sefton Council…up until September 1994, so far as we were aware the site was under the control of Sefton Council, who between July and September were not acting on behalf of this Association…Sefton acted as this Associations Agents…in that they were appointed by us to oversee and look after out interests while the houses were being built. Their activities would have included control of the way the contractors operated…unless Fawley Construction actually demolished your “nib” wall, they could not be held responsible as there was physical demolition of the maisonette blocks still going on after March 1994…it is not my prerogative to pass the liability for the demolition of your wall onto another party…I accept that I have access to files and records that you do not…those same files and records can throw no further light on the matter…this Association is not responsible…I notice what appears to be…a newly built pier attached to your wall or an old pier that has been repointed…I would question who constructed or repointed the brick pier…my records clearly indicate that Maritime were not responsible Sefton, as our agents, are responsible for controlling building operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still taking place up till September 1994. Which had nothing to do with Maritime. In accepting the dates for demolition span a 3 month period…”

MARITIMES LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 28TH 1999 WAS IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER TO THEM DATED SEPTEMBER 20TH 1999 (BOLD ADDED), WHICH STATED:

“Since I last wrote to you I have received from Fawley the date the photographs of my gable end were taken as 14/9/94, as this is after the first week in September 1994 given by Fawley as the date building operations began, it is clear that the photographs were not taken "prior to redevelopment" as stated by you in your letter dated 15/6/99 and as such have no value except to prove that the wall had been demolished by that date. You have also stated that the nib wall was not in existence after "extensive enquiries" with both your staff and builders when you took possession of the site (14/3/94) this has proven not to be the case evidenced by photographs taken by Sefton Council in July 1994. I have had a letter from Mr Barr of Sefton Council dated 12/10/99 who states "my records indicate that the date of contract completion work was 31st March 1994". In your letter of 5/10/99 you state "demolition was still taking place up 'til September 1994, which had nothing to do with Maritime". In your letter of 4/3/99 you state "this Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton Council". In the light of the above are you saying that after you took possession of a cleared site in March 1994 further demolition took place up until September 1994 and specifically between July 1994 when the nib wall was photographed by Sefton and 14th September 1994 when it had been demolished even though you know of the demolition you don't know who demolished what, or why, and it had nothing to do with Maritime or Sefton who on 28/9/99 you state up until September 1994, as far as you are aware, the site was under the control of and who at the time between July and September 1994 were not acting on behalf of this association.”

Clearly this “3 month period” period differs from the six-month – March to September – period that Judge Fitzgerald found for the demolition of the nib wall. Nor does it correspond with the enclosed version of events sent to me on August 8th 2001 by Sefton Council’s Ms Swale, nor does it correspond with the enclosed letter from GTB Demolition Ltd dated September 13th 2000 averring the nib wall was in situ on April 21st 1994, and most certainly does not correspond with any demolition after April 21st 1994 as by then demolition was supposedly completed: You should also note that the statement by Maritime that Sefton controlled their contractors “building operations” is unfounded, as is the comment in paragraph one on page two (bold added) that:

“I can find no record or evidence of who demolished your wall.”

As the nib wall did not belong to me but to Maritime and is evidently the wall referred to by Judge Fitzgerald as being demolished between March and September 1994 in concert with Maritime. No wonder the Defendant solicitors have requested that Judge Fitzgerald hear their application in claim 6LV50690 on December 13th 2007.

ON OCTOBER 22ND 1999 MARITIME WROTE ME THE ENCLOSED LETTER IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER WRITTEN TO THEM BY MYSELF ON OCTOBER 21ST 1999 (BOLD ADDED), WHICH STATED:

“By now you should have had my letter of yesterday and I hope for a reply as clear as the one relating to building operations and photographs, to recap. I wish to know not when Fawley Construction commenced building operations but when they first moved onto the site to erect fencing and have materials delivered, both of which are evident on their photographs of my gable end, unless this was done between the 12th and 14th September. To answer your Question about my residency, yes I was in residency during July to September and if you care to tell me the day the nib wall was demolished I may be able to tell you what I was doing that day but am unable to account for every day during that period. If I had been home on that day you are correct to assume I could have ascertained who demolished the nib wall. By the nature of your questions you seem to accept that the nib wall was demolished between the taking of the photographs by Sefton Council and Fawley Construction which brings the time period down to about ten weeks, even less it you take into account the photocopy I sent you, taken as it was after the ones taken by Sefton Council, do you agree.”

I also refer you to the enclosed correspondence with Ms Swale of Sefton Council dated June 19th and July 4th 2001 and further correspondence regarding her averment on August 8th 2001 – copied to Royal & SunAlliance – dated; 6th and 31st August 2001, 1st, and 22nd October 2001: and her response’s dated; October 18th and 22nd 2001. NB Ms Swales signature is pp the Councils Finance Director Mr Yates and there are two versions of it.

Finally I most particularly refer you to two without prejudice letters between Maritime’s CEO and myself dated July 9th and 11th 2001respectively which were copied to Maritime’s solicitor Mr Hayhurst at Bell Lamb & Joynson and, who subsequently, seemingly as the senior partner of 147 Law, Maritimes solicitors and, with the knowledge or constructive knowledge of the above, refused on Maritimes behalf to enter into ADR with me.

I also enclose evidence that from November 25th 2005 the court knew I was returning correspondence from the Defendant solicitor to him regarding CPR 23PD.11.1 filed on; November 29th 2005, December 6th and 8th 2005, January 4th 11th and 26th 2006: yet did not send me any filed documents or applications from the Defendant solicitor.

This letter will filed at Liverpool County Court FAO Judge Fitzgerald and be copied to Howarth Goodman to utterly refute any locus standi they have in the matter, and to Bell Lamb & Joynson.

I AWAIT AN ANSWER TO MY FOI REQUEST.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Mr Robinson

A reply to your FOI request was sent to you on Monday 5 January and I
refer you my email of the same date.

I have since explained that if you believe the court documents you have
are forged then you should get in contact with the Police as this is a
serious criminal offence, I'm afraid this office is unable to intervene.
I have also informed you that it is the Ministry of Justice that deal
with the courts and not this office, if you have any problems then you
should contact them.

You say you sent documents to 9 Buckingham Gate, the Attorney Generals
Office has not been at that address for over two years, depending on
when you sent them i.e. after 2006, may be the reason why we have not
received any documentation from yourself.

As I have informed you in previous emails, this office is unable to
assist you further, a response to your Freedom of Information request
has been sent to you and I have informed you of the correct government
departments you should contact, I refer you to my previous emails for
contact details.

I must inform you that any further emails will be read noted and filed
with out reply.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

THE DOCUMENTATION WAS SENT BY RECORDED DELIVERY AND NOT RETURNED TO ME, THEREFORE IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECIEVED.

WAS THERE NO FORWARDING ADDRESS FOR BUCKINGHAM GATE AND WILL YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THE PRECISE DATE THE OFFICE CEASED TO BE USED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO I MAY INVESTIGATE FURTHER.

I REMIND YOU THAT BOTH THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT AND THE DEFENDANT BOTH HAD COPIES OF THE SAID FORGED DOCUMENTS AND AS COURT OFFICERS, HAD A HIGHER DUTY TO REPORT THE FORGERY TO THE POLICE.

AS I HAVE TOLD YOU, MERSEYSIDE POLICE DO NOT ACCEPT ANY REPORT OF CRIME I MAKE TO THEM WHATSOEVER.

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT THE MOJ IS THE CORRECT DEPARTMENT TO SEND THE FORGED COMPUTER RECORDS TO ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

I will be in court for the majority of the day.
My emails are not being monitered or forwarded whilst I am away. If your email is urgent please re-send to [email address]. If you are writing in regards to a Freedom of Information request please send to [Attorney General's Office request email].

show quoted sections

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Mr Robinson

I refer to your email below, you are repeating the points you have made
to me in earlier emails all of which have been answered at some length.
I am afraid in the absence in new information being raised I must refer
you to my previous responses to your queries.

For your information this office moved from Buckingham Gate in May 2007.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

WILL YOU PLEASE SPECIFY YOUR ANSWER IN TERMS OF THE ACT

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Mr Robinson

You have not made a new Freedom of Information request, therefore I will
not be replying to you under the terms of the act.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

MY REQUEST:

Will you confirm or deny that you are in possession of a forged
court computer record from the Liverpool county court.

WITH REGARD TO YOU TELLING ME TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE AND MOJ, I WILL NOW DO SO AND RELY ON WHAT YOU SAY BELOW:

"Your original email to this office was in regards to forged court documents, as you may already know this is a serious criminal offence and should be referred to your local police authority for investigation, I'm afraid this office is unable to assist in this matter. If you have any queries regarding court documents then you should contact the Ministry of Justice as this falls under their jurisdiction, you can contact them via email at [email address]."

I WILL COPY THESE REPORTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT YOUR OFFICE WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson

Please find attached a copy of our response to your Freedom of
Information request.

Regards

James Ross
Freedom of Information Officer

<<FOI Request - Fred Robinson.pdf>>

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I WILL SEND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MY REPORT TO THE POLICE AND MOJ.

YOU DO NOT CONFIRM OR DENY RECEIPT OF FORGED COURT COMPUTER RECORDS AT YOUR "OTHER OFFICE" OR IF THEY WERE FORWARDED TO YOUR OFFICE SO I CANNOT ACCEPT YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY FOI REQUEST YET.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Mr Robinson

Under the terms of Freedom of Information Act, your request has been
answered, I have informed you that this office "holds no court records".
If you believe my decision to be incorrect, then you may request an
internal review, details of how to do this are in both letters I have
sent to you.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THE FORGED COURT COMPUTER RECORDS WERE NOT RECIEVED BY THE ATTORNEYS OFFICE OR FORWARDED TO YOUR OFFICE ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

Mr Robinson

I have already answered your question in previous correspondence and
refer you to my previous emails.

Regards

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

THE DOCUMENTATION WAS SENT BY RECORDED DELIVERY AND NOT RETURNED TO ME, THEREFORE IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECIEVED.

WAS THERE NO FORWARDING ADDRESS FOR BUCKINGHAM GATE AND WILL YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE PRECISE DATE THE OFFICE CEASED TO BE USED BYTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO I MAY INVESTIGATE FURTHER.

I REMIND YOU THAT BOTH THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT AND THE DEFENDANT BOTH HAD COPIES OF THE SAID FORGED DOCUMENTS AND AS COURT OFFICERS,HAD A HIGHER DUTY TO REPORT THE FORGERY TO THE POLICE. AS I HAVE TOLD YOU, MERSEYSIDE POLICE DO NOT ACCEPT ANY REPORT OFCRIME I MAKE TO THEM WHATSOEVER.

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THE FORGED COURT COMPUTER RECORDS WERE NOT RECIEVED BY THE ATTORNEYS OFFICE OR FORWARDED TO YOUR OFFICE ?

ARE YOU TELLING ME TO REPORT THE MATTER TO THE POLICE
AND MOJ, IF SO WILL NOW DO SO AND RELY ON WHAT YOU SAY BELOW:

"Your original email to this office was in regards to forged court
documents, as you may already know this is a serious criminal
offence and should be referred to your local police authority for
investigation, I'm afraid this office is unable to assist in this
matter. If you have any queries regarding court documents then you
should contact the Ministry of Justice as this falls under their
jurisdiction, you can contact them via email at [email address]."

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross

For your information, I have taken your advice and sent the following to Merseyside Police and the MOJ:

"CRIME REPORT FORGERY OF COURT COMPUTER RECORDS

With regard to the attached letter from Mr Ross, Correspondence Unit, the office of the Attorney General I wish to report the criminal offence of forgery of the Liverpool county court computer records:

THE OFFENCE

That an unknown officer, or officer’s, of HMCS did forge, by alteration, the court computer records of claim 5LV53314 and by so doing caused that computer to record information that was untrue in breach of the Forgery and Computer Misuse Acts.

THE EVIDENCE

1. Acknowledgement of Service form from howarth goodman solicitors dated 3/VIII/05

2. Copy of the genuine court computer record dated between May 11th and August 5th 2005

3. Page two of form N244 filed on 10/VIII/05 by howarth goodman, solicitors

4. Copy of the forged court computer record dated between May 11th and September 20th 2005

5. Letter to myself from The Law Society dated December 12th 2005

6. Letter to myself from Brown Turner Solicitors dated July 1st 2005

7. Letter to the Lord Chancellor headed “Regarding the County Court Record” dated November 6th 2007 filed at Liverpool county court.

THE FACTS

On June 22nd 2005 I obtained interlocutory judgement for latent damage to my property against Maritime Housing Association by default of acknowledgement of service, or a defence, being filed within the time allowed by the CPR, this judgement is recorded on the genuine court computer record on June 22nd 2005.

This judgement is not recorded on the forged court computer record on June 22nd 2005 and became final on July 13th 2005.

On July 1st 2005 my solicitors, Brown Turner, sent Maritime Housing Association a letter from my surveyor outlining progressive latent defects in my property caused by the demolition of the party boundary structure known as the ‘nib wall’ that had formally abutted my gable wall giving it some support.

The entire matter up to July 1st 2005, as agreed by Brown Turner and myself, is accurately outlined in the “Background” section of the December 12th 2005 letter to me from The Law Society.

The genuine court computer record confirms the above and also confirms that the acknowledgement of service dated 3/VIII/05, not recorded on the genuine or forged court computer record, was returned to howarth goodman on August 5th 2005 because the ‘regular’ judgement obtained by me against Maritime Housing Association had, under the CPR, had been entered and not contested in time and was therefore entered and final.

On 10/VIII/05 Howarth Goodman filed their N244 application for strike out of my claim based on CPR Part 13.3 confirming the date of their Acknowledgement of Service had been dated 3/VIII/05 which, they say they had filed in time but, as recorded on the genuine court computer, the acknowledgement was due not on 3/VIII/05, but on June 1st 2005. Proving in fact Howarth goodman had no legal right to acknowledge, or defend the claim or apply for the ‘regular’ judgment to be struck under CPR Part 13.3.

This application is not recorded on the forged court computer record.

As advised by Mr Ross, I will copy this crime report to the Ministry of Justice and file this letter at Liverpool county court and copy it to the office of the Attorney General, howarth goodman, solicitors, Brown Turner, solicitors, and The Law Society."

THE LAW

FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981

1. The offence of forgery.

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

2. The offence of copying a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

3. The offence of using a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument.

It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

8. Meaning of “instrument”.

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Part of this Act “instrument” means

(a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character;

(d) any disc, tape, sound track or other device on or in which information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or other means.

9. Meaning of “false” and “making”.

(1) An instrument is false for the purposes of this Part of this Act

(a) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in that form; or

(b) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in that form; or

(c) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in those terms; or

(d) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in those terms; or

(e) if it purports to have been altered in any respect by a person who did not in fact alter it in that respect; or

(f) if it purports to have been altered in any respect on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise the alteration in that respect; or

(g) if it purports to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made or altered; or

(h) if it purports to have been made or altered by an existing person but he did not in fact exist.

(2) A person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as making a false instrument if he alters an instrument so as to make it false in any respect (whether or not it is false in some other respect apart from that alteration).

10. Meaning of “prejudice” and “induce”.

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4) below, for the purposes of this Part of this Act an act or omission intended to be induced is to a person’s prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs—

(a) will result—

(i) in his temporary or permanent loss of property; or

(ii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration; or

(iii) in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

(b) will result in somebody being given an opportunity—

(i) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him; or

(ii) to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

(c) will be the result of his having accepted a false instrument as genuine, or a copy of a false instrument as a copy of a genuine one, in connection with his performance of any duty.

(2) An act which a person has an enforceable duty to do and an omission to do an act which a person is not entitled to do shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(3) In this Part of this Act references to inducing somebody to accept a false instrument as genuine, or a copy of a false instrument as a copy of a genuine one, include references to inducing a machine to respond to the instrument or copy as if it were a genuine instrument or, as the case may be, a copy of a genuine one.

(4) Where subsection (3) above applies, the act or omission intended to be induced by the machine responding to the instrument or copy shall be treated as an act or omission to a person’s prejudice.

(5) In this section “loss” includes not getting what one might get as well as parting with what one has.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

I will be in Court all day today.
My emails are not being monitered or forwarded whilst I am away. If your email is urgent please re-send to [email address]. If you are writing in regards to a Freedom of Information request please send to [Attorney General's Office request email].

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I HAVE DONE.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

THIS MATTER IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLOWING:

January 27th 2009

Report of Forgery of Court Computer Records

With regard to the above report I have been contacted by telephone by Customer Services at Marsh Land Police station and given the log number 0901260417.

I have been asked to make an appointment to be visited, however I see no purpose I this as all the evidence of the crime has been sent to yourselves and the next logical step would seem to be to contact the Manager of the Liverpool county court at Vernon Street as that is where the forged computer record was given to me.

I do not wish to appear to be being unhelpful in any way, but it is simply that I have nothing to offer the investigation of the alleged crime to the Police except the reporting and evidence of it.

Clearly I cannot investigate the contents of the courts computer or interview or identify the courts officers who are responsible for operating the court computer and therefore, cannot ascertain any information that would be of any use to the Police in their investigation of the alleged crime.

I will file this letter at the Liverpool county court for their information and copy to the Ministry of Justice.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—

(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in
connection with fraud, or

(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

8 “Article”

(1) For the purposes of—

(a) sections 6 and 7, and

(b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for use in the course of or in connection with fraud,

“article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear JAMES ROSS

BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND MERSEYSIDE POLICE ARE NOW IN POSSESSION OF THE FORGED COURT COMPUTER RECORDS. I THINK YOU NEED TO CONTACT MERSEYSIDE POLICE.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear JAMES ROSS

FOR INFORMATION 

I REFER YOU TO THE "EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK"



Chapter 1.3 Unrepresented parties - Key points

The ‘litigant in person’

Most unrepresented parties are stressed and worried, operating in
 an alien environment in what for them is a foreign language.

They
 are trying to grasp concepts of law and procedure about which they
may be totally ignorant. They may well be experiencing feelings of
fear, ignorance, frustration, bewilderment and disadvantage,
especially if appearing against a represented party.

The outcome of
the case may have a profound effect and long-term consequences upon
their life.

They may have agonised over whether the case was worth
 the risk to their health and finances, and therefore feel 
passionately about their situation.



Role of the judge



Judges and those who chair tribunals must be aware of the feelings 
and difficulties experienced by unrepresented parties and be ready 
and able to help them, especially if a represented party is being
 oppressive or aggressive.

Maintaining patience and an even-handed
approach is also important where the unrepresented party is being
 oppressive or aggressive towards another party or its
 representative or towards the court.

The judge should, however,
 remain understanding so far as possible as to what might lie behind
their behaviour.

Maintaining a balance between assisting and 
understanding what the unrepresented party requires, while
 protecting their represented opponent against the problems that
can be caused by the unrepresented party ’s lack of legal and
procedural knowledge, is the key.



1.3.1 Introduction



There are a number of reasons why individuals may choose to
 represent themselves rather than instruct a lawyer.

Many do not
 qualify for public funding, either financially or because of the 
nature of their case.

Some cannot afford a solicitor and even
 distrust lawyers.

Others believe that they will be better at
 putting their own case across.



This section aims to identify the difficulties faced (and caused)
 by litigants in person before, during and after the litigation
 process, and to provide guidance to judges with a view to ensuring
that both parties receive a fair hearing where one or both is not
represented by a lawyer.

This chapter supplements and should be
 read in conjunction with Chapter 1.1.

Subject to the law relating to vexatious litigants, everybody of
full age and capacity is entitled to be heard in person by any
 court or tribunal which is concerned to adjudicate in proceedings
in which that person is a party.

But on the whole those who 
exercise this personal right find that they are operating in an
alien environment.

The courts and tribunals have not traditionally
 been receptive to their needs.

All too often the litigant in person 
is regarded as a problem for judges and for the court system rather 
than a person for whom the system of civil justice exists.



Lord Woolf, Access to Justice, Interim Report June 1995



It is curious that lay litigants have been regarded … as problems,
almost as nuisances for the court system. This has meant that the 
focus has generally been upon the difficulties that litigants in 
person pose for the courts rather than the other way around.



Prof. John Baldwin, Monitoring the Rise of the Small Claims Limit



Unrepresented parties are likely to experience feelings of fear,
ignorance, anger, frustration and bewilderment.

They will feel at a
profound disadvantage, despite the fact that the outcome may have a 
profound effect and long-term consequences on their lives.

The aim
 of the judge or tribunal chair should be to ensure that the parties 
leave with the sense that they have been listened to and had a fair
hearing – whatever the outcome.

In what follows, the term ‘unrepresented party’ encompasses those 
preparing a case for trial, those conducting their own case at
 trial and those wishing to enforce a judgement or to appeal.



Disadvantages faced



The disadvantages faced by unrepresented parties stem from their 
lack of knowledge of the law and court procedure.

For many
 their perception of the court environment will be based on what 
they have seen on the television and in films.

They tend to:

be unfamiliar with the language and specialist vocabulary of legal 
proceedings;

have little knowledge of the procedures involved and
 find it difficult to apply the rules even if they do read them;


lack objectivity and emotional distance from their case;

be 
unskilled in advocacy and unable to undertake cross-examination or 
test the evidence of an opponent;

be ill-informed about the 
presentation of evidence;

be unable to understand the relevance of
 law and regulations to their own problem, or to know how to
 challenge a decision that they believe is wrong.



All these factors have an adverse effect on the preparation and
presentation of their case.

Equally, there are other unrepresented
parties who are familiar with the requirements of the process.



Numbers



Increasing numbers of people are now also representing themselves 
in the civil and family courts.



The small claims procedure in the county court is designed
specifically to assist the public to pursue claims without recourse 
to legal representation and has created a huge increase in the 
number of unrepresented parties.

The vast majority of defended
civil actions in the county court are dealt with under this procedure
dure and it is a sign of its success that its jurisdiction was 
increased (subject to certain exceptions in personal injury cases) 
from claims of up to £1,000, to claims of up to £5,000.

With the 
consent of the parties, cases of a certain type can encompass
substantially greater claims.

Public funding has never been 
available for small claims.



Unrepresented parties also appear with increasing frequency in the
Court of Appeal in criminal, civil and family cases.

Some have represented themselves at first instance.

Others, having had lawyers
 appear for them in the court below, take their own cases on appeal,
often through a withdrawal of public funding after the first
 instance hearing.



Ways to help



The aim is to ensure that unrepresented parties understand what is
going on and what is expected of them at all stages of the
proceedings – before, during and after any attendances at a
hearing.



This means ensuring that: the process is (or has been) explained to
them in a manner that they can understand; they have access to
appropriate information (e.g. the rules, practice directions and
guidelines – whether from publications or websites); they are
 informed about what is expected of them in ample time for them to
 comply; wherever possible they are given sufficient time according
to their own needs.

1.3.2

Particular areas of difficulty



Those who are involved in legal proceedings without legal
representation may face a daunting range of problems of both
knowledge and understanding...

...

Information



...

Many unrepresented parties believe that the court staff are there 
to give legal advice.

Under the Courts Charter court staff can only
 give information on how a case may be pursued; they cannot give
 legal advice under any circumstances.



1.3.3 Before the court appearance



Statements of case and witness statements

Unrepresented parties may make basic errors in the preparation of
civil cases by:

failing to choose the best cause of action or
defence; overlooking limitation periods;

not appreciating that they 
are witnesses in their own cases;

failing to file their own witness
s statements in advance of trial (and not understanding that in
consequence they may not be able to give evidence).



The individual’s level of knowledge should be taken into account in
 civil cases when deciding whether to make allowances for such 
failures.

A flexible approach ought to be adopted where possible,
even if this involves an adjournment.



Some of these problems are addressed in the Protocols of the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR).

The Court Service has produced a new series
 of leaflets for unrepresented parties in the light of the CPR.



Directions and court orders



Unrepresented parties often do not understand pre-hearing
 directions (in particular those imposing time deadlines and ‘unless
 orders’) or the effect of court orders so:



ensure that they leave a directions hearing appreciating exactly 
what is required of them;

involve them in the process of giving 
those directions (e.g. asking them how much time they need to take
a particular step and why) so that they realise that the directions
 relate to the conduct of their own case;

explain fully the precise
meaning of any particular direction or court order.



Sometimes they believe that if the other side has failed to comply 
with such directions, that in itself is evidence in support of 
their own case, or the opponent should be prevented from defending
 or proceeding further.

They often feel upset at what they regard as 
an over-tolerant attitude by the courts to delays by solicitors.



Documentary evidence



A common problem is lack of understanding about the use and
application of documents and bundles.

Experience shows that
 unrepresented parties:



tend not to make sufficient use of documentary or photographic
evidence in their cases;

fail to appreciate the need for maps and
plans of any location relevant to the case.



Preliminary hearings represent an opportunity to give guidance on 
these matters.



Disclosure of documents



The duty to disclose documents is frequently neglected by
unrepresented parties.

Some will have little or no appreciation
that they should adopt a ‘cards on the table’ approach.


Consequently there can be delay, either because of the need to 
adjourn or because the judge or the other side requires time at the 
hearing to read recently disclosed documents.

When a pre-trial 
hearing takes place, a short clear explanation of the duty of
 disclosure and the test as to whether or not a document needs to be 
disclosed helps both parties and the court in terms of time saved.



Preparing bundles



Many unrepresented parties do not have access to office facilities
 and have difficulties in photocopying documents, preparing bundles
 and typing witness statements.

They have little concept of the need
 for documents to be in chronological order and paginated.

Putting 
the case back is often the sensible course to take, in the event of 
litigants coming to court with their bundles in other than proper
order.



Producing documents



All too often unrepresented parties do not bring relevant documents
with them to the hearing.

The court or tribunal is faced with the
comment:

‘I can produce it – it is at home’, but it is then too
 late and an adjournment is likely to be expensive and will usually 
be refused.



The party should have been warned in advance not only to disclose
relevant documents to the other side but to produce the originals 
at the hearing.



Sources of law



Most unrepresented parties do not have access to legal textbooks or
libraries where such textbooks are available and may not be able to
down-load information from a legal website.

Why not let an
 individual, accompanied by a member of the court staff, have access
to the court library or to a particular book?



Sometimes unrepresented parties do not understand the role of case
law and are confused by the fact that the judge or tribunal appears
 to be referring to someone else’s case.



A brief explanation of the doctrine of precedent will enable an
unrepresented party to appreciate what is going on and why.

A
re presented party’s lawyer should be told to produce any
 authorities to be relied on at the outset.

An unrepresented party
 must be given proper opportunity to read such authorities and make
 submissions in relation to them.



Live evidence



Judges and tribunal chairs are often told: ‘All you have to do is
 to ring Mr X and he will confirm what I am saying.’

When it is
 explained that this is not possible, unrepresented parties may 
become aggrieved and fail to understand that it is for them to
prove their case.



They should be informed at an early stage that they must prove what
they say by witness evidence so may need to approach witnesses in
advance and ask them to come to court.

The need for expert evidence
 should also be explained and the fact that no party can call an
 expert witness unless permission has been given by the court, 
generally in advance.



When there is an application to adjourn, bear in mind that
unrepresented parties may genuinely not have realised just how
important the attendance of such witnesses is.

If the application
is refused a clear explanation should be given.



Adjournments



Un represented parties may not appreciate the need to obtain an
adjournment order if a hearing date presents them with
 difficulties.



It is a common misconception that it is sufficient to write to the 
court without consulting the other side, merely asking for the case
to be put off to another date, or that no more than a day’s notice
of such a request is required.

Conversely, unrepresented parties 
may find it difficult to understand why cases need to be adjourned
 if they over- run because of the way in which they or others have
 presented their cases, or why their cases have not started at the
time at which they were listed.

..

...The hearing



The judge or chair of a tribunal is a facilitator of justice and
may need to assist the unrepresented party in ways that are not
 appropriate for a party who has employed skilled legal advisers and 
an experienced advocate.

This may include:



attempting to elicit the extent of the understanding of that party
 at the outset and giving explanations in everyday language;

making
clear in advance the difference between justice and a just trial on
 the evidence (i.e. that the case will be decided on the basis of
 the evidence presented and the truthfulness and accuracy of the 
witnesses called).



Explanations by the judge



Basic conventions and rules need to be stated at the start of a 
hearing.

The judge’s name and the correct mode of address should be
clarified. Individuals present need to be introduced and their
 roles explained... An unrepresented party who does not understand
 something or has a problem with any aspect of the case should be
 told to inform the judge immediately so that the problem can be 
addressed.

The purpose of the hearing and the particular matter or
 issue on which a decision is to be made must be clearly stated.

A
 party may take notes but the law forbids the making of personal
tape-recordings. If the unrepresented party needs a short break for
personal reasons, they only have to ask. The golden rule is that 
only one person may speak at a time and each side will have a full
opportunity to present its case.

..

...1.1.

Purpose of hearing



The purpose of a particular hearing may not be understood. For
example, the hearing of an application to set aside a judgement may
be thought to be one in which the full merits of the case will be 
argued.

The procedure following a successful application should be 
clearly explained, such as the need to serve the proceedings on the
defendant, for a full defence to be filed and directions which may
be given thereafter so that the parties know what is going to
 happen next.



The judge’s role 

It can be hard to strike a balance in assisting an unrepresented
 party in an adversarial system. An unrepresented party may easily
 get the impression that the judge does not pay sufficient attention
 to them or their case, especially if the other side is represented
 and the judge asks the advocate on the other side to summarise the 
issues between the parties.



Explain the judge’s role during the hearing.

If you are doing
 something which might be perceived to be unfair or controversial in
 the mind of the unrepresented party, explain precisely what you are
 doing and why.

Adopt to the extent necessary an inquisitorial role
 to enable the unrepresented party fully to present their case (but
 not in such a way as to appear to give the unrepresented party an
undue advantage).



The real issues



Many unrepresented parties will not appreciate the real issues in
 the case. For example, a litigant might come to court believing
 that they are not liable under a contract because it is not in 
writing, or that they can win the case upon establishing that the
 defendant failed to care when the real issue in the case is whether
or not the defendant’s negligence caused the loss.



At the start of any hearing it is vital to identify and if possible
 establish agreement as to the issues to be tried so that all
 parties proceed on this basis. Time spent in this way can shorten 
the length of proceedings considerably.



Compromise



Unrepresented parties may not know how to compromise or even that
they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to trying
to reach a compromise.



Tell them, particularly in civil proceedings, that the role of the 
court is dispute resolution – explanations as to forms of 
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may be appropriate.

Ask them
 whether they have tried to resolve their differences by negotiation 
and, if possible, spell out the best and worst possible outcomes at 
the outset.

This can lead to movement away from the idea that to 
negotiate is a sign of weakness.

Remind them to tell the court in 
advance if their case has been settled.



Advocacy



Often unrepresented parties phrase questions wrongly and some find
 it hard not to make a statement when they should be
cross-examining.

Explain the difference between evidence and
 submissions, and help them put across a point in question form.



Unrepresented parties frequently have difficulty in understanding
 that merely because there is a different version of events to their
 own, this does not necessarily mean that the other side is lying.


Similarly, they may construe any suggestion from the other side
 that their own version is not true as an accusation of lying.

Be 
ready to explain that this is not automatically so.



Where one party is represented, invite this advocate to make final
submissions first, so that an unrepresented party can see how it
 should be done.



Criminal cases

Under Article 6(3) of the European Convention of Human Rights,
everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend
him or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her
 own choosing or, if he or she has not sufficient means to pay for 
legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of
 justice so require.



Those who dispense with legal assistance do so, almost always,
because they decline to accept the advice which they have been
 given, whether as to plea or the conduct of the trial.

A firm hand 
almost always persuades such defendants that they are much better 
advised to retain their representatives.

If this does not work the 
problem for the judge is to do with retaining control over the 
proceedings rather than sensitive explanation to the defendant of
 the rules of procedure and evidence.



Cross-examination



Throughout a trial a judge must be ready to assist a defendant in
 the conduct of their case.

This is particularly so when the
 defendant is examining or cross-examining witnesses and giving 
evidence:



always ask the defendant whether they wish to call any witnesses;


be ready to restrain unnecessary, intimidating or humiliating 
cross-examination;

be prepared to discuss the course of proceedings
with the defendant in the absence of the jury before they embark on 
any cross-examination;

note the statutory prohibitions on
 cross-examination by an unrepresented defendant.



Conduct of the defence



Paragraph 5 of the Practice Direction Crown Court (Defendant’s
Evidence) [1995] 2 Cr App R 192 puts a duty on a judge to address 
an unrepresented defendant at the conclusion of the evidence for
 the prosecution and in the presence of the jury as follows:



You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you to
make your defence.

You may give evidence on oath, and be
 cross-examined like any other witness.

If you do not give evidence
 or, having been sworn without good cause, refuse to answer any
 question, the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper.

That 
means they may hold it against you.

You may also call any witness
or witnesses whom you have arranged to attend court.

Afterwards you 
may also, if you wish, address the jury by arguing your case from 
the dock.

But you cannot at that stage give evidence.

Do you now
 intend to give evidence?



Summing up



In the course of summing up a case to a jury in which the defendant
is unrepresented, tell the jury that it was always open to
 defendants to represent themselves and that the jury should bear
 in mind the difficulty for defendants in properly presenting their 
case.

In some cases, such comments may be more appropriate at the
outset.



Adjournments



Sometimes a defendant in a criminal case becomes an unrepresented
party during the case either by reason of the defendant’s
representatives withdrawing or because they are dismissed by the
defendant.



Bear in mind that you may exercise your discretion in deciding
 whether or not to grant an adjournment to enable fresh legal
representatives to be instructed.

That decision should be based on
 what is in the interests of justice having regard to the interests
 of the witnesses, the public and the defendant, the stage reached
 in the trial and the likely ability of the defendant to conduct the 
defence case properly.

Bear in mind also the duty to warn a 
defendant against any course that might not be in that defendant’s 
best interests, but if the defendant decides to go on alone, allow
t hem to do so.



1.3.5 Assistance and representation



A party to civil or family proceedings may wish to be assisted by a
‘friend’ at a hearing or even represented by a person without
 rights of audience.



In a climate where legal aid is virtually unobtainable and lawyers
disproportionately expensive, the McKenzie friend and lay
representative make a significant contribution to access to
 justice.

But reported cases tend to concentrate upon reasons why 
they should not be allowed rather than circumstances where they may
be of assistance to a party and the court.

The judge has to 
identify those situations where such support is beneficial and
 distinguish circumstances where it should not be allowed.



In addition the need for a litigation friend must be recognised and 
this has changed with the introduction of a new mental capacity
 jurisdiction (see further Chapter 5.4, section 5.4.3).



‘McKenzie friend’



This term refers to an assistant or friend (whether lawyer or not) 
who assists in presenting the case by taking notes, quietly making
suggestions or giving advice.

The role differs from that of the 
advocate in that the McKenzie friend does not address the court or 
examine any witnesses and is generally permitted at trials or full
 hearings although the ‘friend’ can be excluded if unsuitable (e.g.
someone who is pursuing their own or an unsuitable agenda).

It may
be less appropriate to allow such assistance in private (chambers) 
hearings because the judge generally then provides more assistance 
to an unrepresented party.



A McKenzie friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in
 relation to the proceedings nor manage the case outside court (e.g.
by signing court documents).



The Court of Appeal summarised the principles in Paragon Finance
plc v Noueiri [2001] EWCA Civ 1402, [2001] 1 WLR 2357, as follows:



A McKenzie friend had no right to act as such: the only right was
 that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.



A McKenzie friend was not entitled to address the court: if he did
 so, he would become an advocate and require the grant of a right of
audience.



As a general rule, a litigant in person who wished to have a 
McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge was
 satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice did not so
 require.

However, the court could prevent a McKenzie friend from
 continuing to act in that capacity where the assistance he gave
 impeded the efficient administration of justice.



See also R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1811 and Re
G (Chambers proceedings: next friend) [1999] 2 FLR 59, CA.



A differently constituted Court of Appeal in Re O (Children): Re
W-R (A Child): Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759; [2005] 2 FLR
967 (Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ) has since offered this guidance in family
proceedings:



There is a strong presumption in favour of a litigant in person
 being allowed the assistance of a McKenzie friend.

A request should
 not be refused without compelling reasons, even where the
 proceedings relate to a child and are being heard in private.

The
fact that the unrepresented party appears to be capable of
conducting his case does not begin to outweigh the strong
presumption in favour of allowing such assistance.

The fact that a
 proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an organisation that promotes a 
particular cause is no reason for not allowing him to undertake the
 role.

It was not for the litigant in person to justify his desire 
to have a McKenzie friend but for the objecting party to rebut the 
presumption in favour of allowing it.

There is no justification for 
refusing to allow a McKenzie friend simply because it is a 
directions hearing.

Proposed McKenzie friends should not be
 excluded from the courtroom or chambers whilst the application for
 assistance is being made.

The proposed McKenzie friend should 
produce a short CV or statement about himself confirming that he
 has not interest in the case and understands his role and the duty
 of confidentiality.



In February 2005, the President of the Family Division produced
guidance to judges in family proceedings and this is reproduced in
 the following pages.



Rights of audience

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 27 regulates the
 right to appear in court.

General rights of audience (advocacy 
rights) are granted to duly qualified barristers or solicitors (and
certain others) and employees of solicitors may appear at hearings
in ‘private’.

In addition:

 the court may refuse to hear a person (for reasons which relate to
 him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience 
but must give reasons;

a court has discretionary power to grant an
 unqualified person a right of audience in relation to particular 
proceedings before that court;

a special provision is made for lay 
representatives in the small claims track of the county court.


There is a right of audience in the presence of the party at the
 hearing itself but the court may in its discretion hear a lay 
representative in the absence of the party – Civil Procedure Rules
1998, PD27 para. 3.2;

Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order
1999.



Lay representative



The term ‘lay representative’ relates to a person who does not
 possess advocacy rights and may not even be a lawyer, but to whom
 the court grants a right of audience on behalf of a party in
 relation to the proceedings before that court.

The party must apply 
at the outset of a hearing if he wishes an unqualified individual to
 be granted a right of audience, and parties cannot consent to an
 unqualified person exercising a right of audience – Clarkson v
Gilbert [2002] 2 FLR 839 (CA);

D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 2
FCR 206; [1997] 1 FLR 724 (CA).



It may, however, be appropriate to grant a right of audience on a 
one-off basis (e.g. where a party is inform and cannot afford the
 services of a lawyer).

The following guidance was offered by Lord 
Woolf in Clarkson v Gilbert & ors (see above):



“Now that legal aid was not available as readily as it had been in
the past, there were going to be situations where litigants were
 forces to bring proceedings in person where they would need 
assistance. ... litigants in person had to indicate why they needed
some other person who was not qualified to act on their behalf. ...
it would be for them to satisfy the court that it was appropriate. 
If somebody’s health did not, or might no enable them to conduct
 proceedings themselves, and if they lacked means, those were the 
sort of circumstances that could justify a court saying that they
 should have somebody who could act as an advocate on their behalf.
... the objections to someone setting themselves up as an
 unqualified advocate did not exist where a husband was merely
 seeking to assist his wife.

”

But the party should still be present unless there is a justifiable 
reason for absence. It may even in some circumstances be helpful to
 a court or tribunal to recognise the representative as Neuberger J.
pointed out in Izzo v Philip Ross & Co (2001) The Times, 9 August
2001:



“In some circumstances common sense and experience suggests that a
relatively inarticulate and unknowledgeable litigant prompted at
 every turn results in the case taking far longer than if the friend
 speaks directly for him. Every time the court raises a point or 
puts a point to the litigant in person it has to be explained to
 the litigant which often takes longer than explaining it to his 
friend. Then the litigant has to have the answer explained to him
 by the friend, where after the litigant passes the answer to the
court. This is a process which self-evidently prolongs the hearings
and, like chinese whispers, is fraught with potential
 misunderstanding.”



Once the privilege has been granted it is difficult to withdraw it 
even if the representative turns out to be unsuitable.

Problems 
arise where an unqualified person is seeking to provide general
 advocacy services, or appears to be pursuing a separate agenda.

In
Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
 offered guidance:



The discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who did
 not meet the stringent requirements of the 1990 Act were only to be
exercises in exceptional circumstances and after careful
 consideration.

The courts had to consider carefully whether to
 grant rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to 
represent otherwise unrepresented litigants.

The person to be 
represented should normally justify the request and be present at
 the hearing when personal interests are involved.



Conducting litigation



There is a distinction between the conduct of litigation on behalf 
of a party and advocacy at hearings.

The former relates to the 
claim form, statement of case and any applications made during the
course of the hearing.

A ‘statement of truth’ will generally be
required to support such documents and must be signed by the party
(or litigation friend) or the legal representative – CPR
r.22.1(6)(a).

Special provision is made in respect of companies –
see PD 22 para 3 and r.39.6.



The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 28 regulates the
 right to conduct litigations.



In Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (see above) the Court of Appeal
 also offered the following guidance as to right of an unqualified
person to conduct litigation in the courts on behalf of a party:


the existence of such right is determined solely in accordance with 
Part II of the 1990 Act; section 28(2)(c) permits a court to grant
 an otherwise unqualified person the right to conduct litigation in
 relation to particular proceedings and to remove that right if it
 is being abused;

the grant of the right should be carried out 
having regard to the same considerations as the grant of a right of 
audience.



Attorneys

The court controls its own procedures and principles for agency do
 not apply, so a power of attorney cannot confer a right to conduct
 litigation or of audience – Gregory v Turner, R (on application of
 Morris) v North Somerset Council [2003] EWCA Civ 183; [2003] 1 WLR
1149 (CA).



Official Solicitor



The Official Solicitor represents parties prior to proceedings who 
are without capacity, deceased or unascertained when no other 
suitable person or agency is able and willing to do so.

The purpose
is to prevent a possible denial of justice and safeguard the
welfare, property or status of the party.



He usually becomes formally involved when appointed by the Court,
and may act as his own solicitor, or instruct a private firm of 
solicitors to act for him.

The vision statement of the Official
 Solicitor’s Office is:

“...

to be an organisation delivering high quality customer focused
 legal services for vulnerable persons, where those services need to
be provided by the public sector ...

”

Enquiries are frequently made by the judiciary and members of the
legal profession and the Official Solicitor can be contacted at:

81 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1DD DX 141150 London/Chancery Lane WC2
Tel.: 020 7911 7127 Fax.: 020 7911 7105 Email:
[email address] Website: www.offsol.demon.co.uk



Representing adults who lack capacity



An order directing the Official Solicitor to act as a legal
representative in a civil court for an incapacitated party will
 either be made with his prior consent or only take effect if his 
consent is obtained.

The Official Solicitor needs to be satisfied 
that his involvement will be consistent with the Vision Statement
 and in appropriate cases he will also require security that his 
charges and expenses will be met before agreeing to act.



Assisting the civil courts



The Official Solicitor may also be called on to give confidential 
advice to judges, to instruct counsel to appear before a judge to 
assist the court as advocate to the court, or to investigate any
 matter on which the court needs a special report...

...Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau



Litigants in person should also be aware of the services provided
 by local Personal Support Units and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. The
PSU at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on
 020 7947 7701, by email at [email address] or at the enquiry desk.


The CAB at the Royal Courts of Justice in London can be contacted 
on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk.

1.3.6

After the hearing



Having won or lost the case, the unrepresented party will need to
understand what has happened and the options available or steps 
that can still be taken.



Explaining the decision



Unrepresented parties often do not understand the outcome of the 
case and the reasons for it.

The following guidance is particularly
 important, therefore, if they have lost.



Always set out clearly the reasons for the decision.

If possible,
provide an unrepresented party with a copy of the order before
 leaving the court.

If judgement is reserved, or the order is to be
 sent on, tell the unrepresented party approximately when they can
 expect to hear further from the court and why there may be a delay.



Costs



Unrepresented parties are frequently unaware that they may recover
costs, either from public funds in criminal matters or from the 
losing side in civil cases.

If such party is entitled to costs but
 says nothing, consider drawing the question of costs to their 
attention, without offering advice, so that any relevant costs 
application can be made.

If an application is made that an
unrepresented party pays the costs, an explanation must be given
 with an opportunity to argue against this.



Appeal



Unless the unrepresented party has been wholly successful in the
case, explain the requirement to seek leave to appeal, if 
applicable. Tell the unrepresented party to consider their rights
 of appeal, but explain that the court cannot give any advice as to
the exercise of those rights.



Enforcement



An unrepresented party may be wholly unaware of the fact that
although a civil judgement has been secured, it still has to be 
enforced.

It is important, therefore:

to explain this in general terms at the end of the case and to make
it clear that the court cannot advise on enforcement, but that
 leaflets are available at the court office; to explain the 
alternatives and that, short of giving advice, the court staff are
 always willing to try to help on matters of enforcement.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

FOR INFORMATION:

FAO Judge Fitzgerald Claim 6LV50680 and 5LV53314

The Legal Secretary to the Law Offices
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London
SW1E 6JP

Dear Sir or Madam

Request Under CPR 39.8.2 5 (i) and (ii) – Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v Maritime Housing Association

With regard to the above request and further correspondence sent to you, and the Defendant solicitors, I have received the enclosed letter regarding a Part 8 Claim, 6LV50690, requiring no defence and which was issued and served on February 3rd 2006 but, not acknowledged, however, the Defendant solicitor evidently now seeks to apply for a civil restraining order on December 13th 2007 in regard to this claim on the basis, inter alia, of his own rejected application in claim 5LV53314 dated July 29th 2005, which was rejected by the court on August 1st 2005 on the basis that judgement had been obtained against his client by myself.

Clearly this application is unfounded, an abuse of process, and should not be heard on December 13th 2007 as it has been struck out and costs awarded against me with regard to it. This being so, no further application can be made regarding it to restrain me in it. The Defendant solicitors act as if Judge Fitzgerald is their trained poodle, in court in my claim only to do tricks for them at their suggestion.

I also enclose a filed Freedom of Information request to Sefton Council regarding the ownership of land and liability for an alleged claim against the Council by myself dated 1993 and January 17th 1994 (which is fraudulent) for alleged damage to 19 Lime Grove in the 1960’s, prior to my occupation of it, by the (impossible) demolition of none existent buildings which alleged claim, was known to the Defendant from at least February 1999 as a claim made by myself in 1993 and is relied on in the Defendants defence as a claim made by myself when I allegedly lived in 9,11,or 13 Lime Grove, i.e., a “mid terrace location”, despite the evidence filed on February 2nd 2006 proving with OS maps from the 1850’s that no such adjoinment had ever existed - and therefore, the claim W215732 dated 1993 could not be the ‘font’ of any damage to 19 Lime Grove - and therefore, destroying Sefton Councils and Aon Corporations (verified) version of claim W215732 as being dated 1993 and January 1st 1994 and clearly based on the fallacy that 19 and 21 Lime Grove had been adjoined when I had lived in a “mid terrace location” in Lime Grove. I also enclose two letters from Maritime dated September 28th and October 5th 1999 (bold Added) in which they aver that:

“In March 1st 1994 when Fawley Construction took possession of the site, demolition work was still being undertaken by Sefton Council…up until September 1994, so far as we were aware the site was under the control of Sefton Council, who between July and September were not acting on behalf of this Association…Sefton acted as this Associations Agents…in that they were appointed by us to oversee and look after out interests while the houses were being built. Their activities would have included control of the way the contractors operated…unless Fawley Construction actually demolished your “nib” wall, they could not be held responsible as there was physical demolition of the maisonette blocks still going on after March 1994…it is not my perogative to pass the liability for the demolition of your wall onto another party…I accept that I have access to files and records that you do not…those same files and records can throw no further light on the matter…this Association is not responsible…I notice what appears to be…a newly built pier attached to your wall or an old pier that has been repointed…I would question who constructed or repointed the brick pier…my records clearly indicate that Maritime were not responsible Sefton, as our agents, are responsible for controlling building operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still taking place up till September 1994. Which had nothing to do with Maritime. In accepting the dates for demolition span a 3 month period…”

Maritimes letter of September 28th 1999 was in response to my letter to them dated September 20th 1999 (bold added), which stated:

“Since I last wrote to you I have received from Fawley the date the photographs of my gable end were taken as 14/9/94, as this is after the first week in September 1994 given by Fawley as the date building operations began, it is clear that the photographs were not taken "prior to redevelopment" as stated by you in your letter dated 15/6/99 and as such have no value except to prove that the wall had been demolished by that date. You have also stated that the nib wall was not in existence after "extensive enquiries" with both your staff and builders when you took possession of the site (14/3/94) this has proven not to be the case evidenced by photographs taken by Sefton Council in July 1994. I have had a letter from Mr Barr of Sefton Council dated 12/10/99 who states "my records indicate that the date of contract completion work was 31st March 1994". In your letter of 5/10/99 you state "demolition was still taking place up 'til September 1994, which had nothing to do with Maritime". In your letter of 4/3/99 you state "this Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton Council". In the light of the above are you saying that after you took possession of a cleared site in March 1994 further demolition took place up until September 1994 and specifically between July 1994 when the nib wall was photographed by Sefton and 14th September 1994 when it had been demolished even though you know of the demolition you don't know who demolished what, or why, and it had nothing to do with Maritime or Sefton who on 28/9/99 you state up until September 1994, as far as you are aware, the site was under the control of and who at the time between July and September 1994 were not acting on behalf of this association.”

Clearly this “3 month period” period differs from the six-month – March to September – period that Judge Fitzgerald found for the demolition of the nib wall. Nor does it correspond with the enclosed version of events sent to me on August 8th 2001 by Sefton Council’s Ms Swale, nor does it correspond with the enclosed letter from GTB Demolition Ltd dated September 13th 2000 averring the nib wall was in situ on April 21st 1994, and most certainly does not correspond with any demolition after April 21st 1994 as by then demolition was supposedly completed: You should also note that the statement by Maritime that Sefton controlled their contractors “building operations” is unfounded, as is the comment in paragraph one on page two (bold added) that:

“I can find no record or evidence of who demolished your wall.”

As the nib wall did not belong to me but to Maritime and is evidently the wall referred to by Judge Fitzgerald as being demolished between March and September 1994 in concert with Maritime. No wonder the Defendant solicitors have requested that Judge Fitzgerald hear their application in claim 6LV50690 on December 13th 2007.

On October 22nd 1999 Maritime wrote me the enclosed letter in response to a letter written to them by myself on October 21st 1999 (bold added), which stated:

“By now you should have had my letter of yesterday and I hope for a reply as clear as the one relating to building operations and photographs, to recap. I wish to know not when Fawley Construction commenced building operations but when they first moved onto the site to erect fencing and have materials delivered, both of which are evident on their photographs of my gable end, unless this was done between the 12th and 14th September. To answer your Question about my residency, yes I was in residency during July to September and if you care to tell me the day the nib wall was demolished I may be able to tell you what I was doing that day but am unable to account for every day during that period. If I had been home on that day you are correct to assume I could have ascertained who demolished the nib wall. By the nature of your questions you seem to accept that the nib wall was demolished between the taking of the photographs by Sefton Council and Fawley Construction which brings the time period down to about ten weeks, even less it you take into account the photocopy I sent you, taken as it was after the ones taken by Sefton Council, do you agree.”

I also refer you to the enclosed correspondence with Ms Swale of Sefton Council dated June 19th and July 4th 2001 and further correspondence regarding her averment on August 8th 2001 – copied to Royal & SunAlliance – dated; 6th and 31st August 2001, 1st, and 22nd October 2001: and her response’s dated; October 18th and 22nd 2001. NB Ms Swales signature is pp the Councils Finance Director Mr Yates and there are two versions of it.

Finally I most particularly refer you to two without prejudice letters between Maritime’s CEO and myself dated July 9th and 11th 2001respectively which were copied to Maritime’s solicitor Mr Hayhurst at Bell Lamb & Joynson and, who subsequently, seemingly as the senior partner of 147 Law, Maritimes solicitors and, with the knowledge or constructive knowledge of the above, refused on Maritimes behalf to enter into ADR with me.

I also enclose evidence that from November 25th 2005 the court knew I was returning correspondence from the Defendant solicitor to him regarding CPR 23PD.11.1 filed on; November 29th 2005, December 6th and 8th 2005, January 4th 11th and 26th 2006: yet did not send me any filed documents or applications from the Defendant solicitor.

This letter will filed at Liverpool County Court FAO Judge Fitzgerald and be copied to Howarth Goodman to utterly refute any locus standi they have in the matter, and to Bell Lamb & Joynson.

Dated December 3rd 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

I will be in Court today.
My emails are not being monitered or forwarded whilst I am away. If your email is urgent please re-send to [email address]. If you are writing in regards to a Freedom of Information request please send to [Attorney General's Office request email].

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

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

S.68

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

s. 69.

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

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

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

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

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

s. 74:--

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

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

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

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

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

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

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

Schedule 3 Part I

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

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

False Land Records

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

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

The Information

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

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

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

The Titles

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

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

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

Title LA45086

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

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

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

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

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

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

Fact

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

Registration of MS351603

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

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

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

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

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

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I refer you to "The Prosecutor Pledge"

Where there is an identifiable victim the prosecutor will:

Take into account the impact on the victim or their family when making a charging decision.

In doing so the prosecutor will ensure that the charge adequately reflects the criminality of the offending. Where there are identified victims the prosecutor will, when selecting a charge, listen to the voice of the victim through their witness statement and, where the numbers of victims allow, through the victim personal statement.

Inform the victim where the charge is withdrawn, discontinued or substantially altered.

The prosecutor will establish with each victim whether they wish to be kept informed of the withdrawal or dismissal of charges and will write and keep them so informed if they do.

Where practical, seek a victim’s view or that of the family when considering the acceptability of a plea.

In deciding on the acceptability of pleas the prosecutor will keep in mind any views expressed by any of the witnesses who are considered to be victims.

Address the specific needs of a victim and where justified seek to protect their identity by making an appropriate application to the court.

The prosecutor will form a judgment and, where appropriate, make an application for “special measures” to ensure that victims are able to give “best evidence” before the court. In appropriate circumstances the prosecutor may also make an application to protect the identity of the victim or prevent inappropriate reporting in the media.

Assist victims at court to refresh their memory from their written or video statement and answer their questions on court procedure and processes.

A member of prosecution staff will introduce themselves to the victim at court and whilst not permitted to discuss their evidence will answer any questions on procedure and processes. The victim will also be given an opportunity to read their statement or see their video taped statement before giving evidence.

Promote and encourage two-way communications between victim and prosecutor at court.

The prosecutor will ensure that during the course of the court hearing any victim who so requests is kept informed of the progress of the case. The prosecutor will promote two-way communication to enable a victim to pass to the prosecutor any information that may assist in the conduct of the prosecution or have a bearing on an assertion made by the defence.

Protect victims from unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on their character and may seek the court’s intervention where cross examination is considered to be inappropriate or oppressive.

The prosecutor will be alert during the course of the trial to unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on the victim’s character and may seek the court’s intervention where, for example, the prosecutor considers that cross-examination by the defence is inappropriate or oppressive.

On conviction, robustly challenge defence mitigation which is derogatory to a victim’s character.

At the sentencing stage, the prosecutor will challenge any assertion by the defence in mitigation which is derogatory to a victim’s character and which is considered either false or irrelevant to proper sentencing considerations.

On conviction apply for appropriate order for compensation, restitution or future protection of the victim.

The prosecutor will always consider making any relevant application for ancillary orders such as compensation or restitution and where appropriate and justified on the evidence encourage the court to impose a restraining order for the future protection of the victim.

Keep victims informed of the progress of any appeal, and explain the effect of the court’s judgment.

Where a case is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Division the prosecutor will ensure that any identified victims are advised of the hearing and that the grounds on which the appeal is made and the effect of the court’s judgement are properly explained.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

I TRUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS RECIEVED THE FOLLOWING FILED LETTER TO THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT DATED FEBRUARY 24TH 2009 REGARDING OTHER HARD COPY RECORDS WITHHELD BY THE COURT WHICH,ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE COURT COMPUTER RECORD, MAKING ONE OF THEM FORGED:

"FOI THE COURT MANAGER - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST THIRD REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF RECORDS

I refer you to the two attached requests for verification of the court filed record under the Freedom of Information Act filed on May 31st 2006 and April 27th 2007.

This request will be copied to:

The Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chief Justice

The Attorney General"

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

James Ross, Attorney General's Office

I will be away from the office until 11 March.
My emails are not being monitered or forwarded whilst I am away. If your email is urgent please re-send to [email address]. If you are writing in regards to a Freedom of Information request please send to [Attorney General's Office request email].

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear James Ross,

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF SOME OF CIVIL SERVICE "OUT OF OFFICE CLUB" ?

THINGS WON'T CHANGE BY MARCH 11TH 2009, NOR WILL MY LETTER NOT HAVE BEEN COPIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson