Incorrect and misleading literature

Diana Smith made this Freedom of Information request to Tribunal Procedure Committee

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

Waiting for an internal review by Tribunal Procedure Committee of their handling of this request.

Dear Tribunal Procedure Committee,
l put in a FOI Act request to Julius Juispais at the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry , regarding the supplying of the AHMLR of incorrect and misleading literature to the public at large and the same incorrect information being posted on the website of the AHMLR for the same time period.
I requested to know the numbers of people who visited the website and the numbers of people provided with this incorrect literature.
I went through three levels of the complaints procedure over this literature and was only provided with the correct literature explaining the practise , process and contacts at the AHMLR in late October 2009 ( hearing was may 2009).
The correct literature was dated February 2009 , so l perceive that the incorrect literature was being given to the public for the months of February 2009- October 2009.
I received confirmation of my FOI Act request being received and that it would be complied with , in writing from Julius Juispias, only to then hear no more.
Contacting the Office Manager at the AHMLR only resulted in insults and phone dropping.
I referred the matter to the Information Commissioners Office and my MP many , many months ago and do not get reply when l contact either.
As the Office Staff at the AHMLR were always boasting that they handle upwards of 5,000 cases at any one time, l feel this is a very important matter to have disclosure on and to enable my asking my MP for a Public Enquiry into.
There is potential here that perhaps as many as a hundred thousand cases could have been affected by the providing of wrong information when the correct information existed and was available.
I apologise for making this request also involve Land Registry , but l perceive these two bodies to run together in the matters of wrong information . My information requests to Land Registry although directed by a prominent person at the Legal Services Commission was denied to me through many attempts and the involvement of the Information Commissioners Office.
Both the AHMLR and Land Registry Head Office seem unclear on their roles and interaction with each other.
On written advice of my acting solicitor l provided crucial information to Land Registry which meant it was then their role to put in for a stay on the Adjudicators Decision.
Instead l was comprimised by John Edon of Kingston upon Hull Land Registry acting on the directions of Land Registry Head Office , telling me on 23 rd July 2009 that l "must" put in for a stay. This was over the existance of an owner of a bit of the land . This bit of the land being the the original claim ( in totality) for the start of my neighbours claim ( adverseley). As a respondant it did not fall for me to do more than notify Land Registry and it should have been for them to notify the AHMLR and to put in for a stay, especially as l had already made it known to the identity of this owner and the adjudicators decision agreed with this person owning the land ( paper title owner).
The only confusion at the hearing was that it was thought he had died.
As a respondant it fell to me to speak out if l knew something was untruthful, which l did.
There was gross negligence in how the whole matter was handled as l had already prior and before any actions of my neighbours, had it confirmed that the "land" was included into my title and was registered land, registered to me .
I was refused the investigation into my already having had this "land" confirmed to be my registered land and of "no use to anyone else". I believe the refusal to investigate was based on a false premis of an "over-riding interest" with further land with my title , that l wrote for correction over an error in the caution register in March 2000 to Land Charges over.
This has most definately been a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted, in that Land Registry and the AHMLR ( adjudicator being a commissioner for LSC at the time of the hearing and my having made it known prior to the hearing that there had been previous problems of charges for someone else and it continuing even though there had been investigations on a massive scale in 1999-2005 involving LSC), have sought through incredible lengths and to harm me , to cover up for their own failures to correct matters in line with the Land Registration Act ( indemnities) in March 2000, as in "an error in the caution register that affects the proprietary owner, is grounds for immediate rectification of the register".
This was wholly about the failure of the Chief Registrar and his not rectifying the register. All matters played out since my notifying Land Charges and providing back to them copy of a charge for a cautioner held in the caution register and against my Registered Title in March 2000 , has been covered up to cause harm to me and to benefit five separate parties in my being deprived of property /land that l have a AP1 showing me as the proprietary owner of all of the land with Registered Title LL112066.
I must insist there is a reply to my requesting under the FOI Act to the number of members of the public that were supplied with wrong information by the AHMLR , as the effect of this wrong information may have cheated members of the public out of homes/property/land and it is a matter our Government needs to address.
Hiding everything behind an "over-riding interest" when paperwork to show the error in not correcting matters in March 2000 has been passed by the Head of the Economic Crime Unit to the Chief Registrar at Kingston upon Hull Land Registry in February 2013, is futile.
Evidence of this paperwork was provided more than eighteen months ago on the advices of head of the Economic
Crime Unit to the Information Commissioners Office, who stated they did not understand it ( Tracey Howarth rang me as my appointed contact).
Files provided by Elizabeth Derrington of the ICR who have investigated my complaints since 2007 up until the end of 2012, show that the ICR were being told in July 2009 that the AHMLR was not answering Land Registry, this is in relation to Land Registry then ringing me on 23 rd July 2009 and telling me l must put in for a stay because of the existance of an owner of a bit of the land who had been presumed dead and of whom the adjudicator in his decision agreed was the paper title owner of that bit of land.
As the adverse land possession claim had been solely sought at the begining of the serving of a B149 Notice on me, by a claim to this bit of the land wholly, then it would appear the case fell dead in the water at the existance of the owner of whom the claimaints / applicants had made no attempt to identify or to trace. As this is the first rule of adverse land possession to seek out the owner of land that is sought by adverse land possession , l can perceive the whole matter to be a direct impact case of misleading the courts and the course of justice

Yours faithfully,

Diana Smith

Diana Smith left an annotation ()

There is no mistaking that Land Registry involve the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry while refusing to provide members of the public that are home/ land owners with information that then becomes a conflict against the laws of this country.
I hope to show that despite the recent involvement of the Law Societies Jonathan Smithers and the involvement of the fraud unit at New Scotland Yard, things will still be overlooked while Land Registry play such a dominent role in preventing a common sense approach to their own gross negligence.
Thirty - Five Million Pounds was provided by our Government in 2007-2009 to Land Registry for frauds committed via their website.
No money has been spent to date to check on the characteristics of Land Registry Staff and their roles in running with matters they know to be dishonest claims.
On 23 rd October 2007 ( within the timelines of our Government playing a role in paying out to compensate and correct matters of fraud), the CSM at my local Land Registry , rang my acting solicitors ( which was not her job remit to do). This was action on her part to prevent me finding out that Land Registry had removed property / land from my Registered Title unlawfully. She then came on the phone to me screaming that l could not be looking to complain about another property as l did not own one. These solicitors unbeknown to me , had witnessed the two declarations of my neighbours for their paperless claim to my already confirmed to me as being my registered land. There was then non-disclosure of these two declarations to me , until after the matter was safely referred to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry.
I perceive this CSM's actions to be corrupt, as she then went on to with hold information of my DPA(SAR) , to the point of even having me and two helpers removed by Humberside Police summoned on a 999 call from the Land Registry Offices. Files provided by Land Registry show this CSM to have published to others , comments about the Lightning Strike l had suffered to my home and she was telling these colleagues she "owed God one" for it happening to me. At the time of her calling Humberside Police, l had received confirmation from her manager the day before that she was under a "thorough investigation" for her conduct towards me over my request under the Data Protection Act for information

Adjudicator to HM Land Registry,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Smith,

 

Please find attached my response to your FOI request.

 

Thanks

 

Gurvir Kaur
Delivery Manager - Adjudicator to HM Land Registry
HM Courts and Tribunal Services
7th Floor Victory House, 34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX
Tel: 0203 077 5800

[1]www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/ahmlr

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to
make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means.

 

show quoted sections

REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW

Dear Adjudicator to HM Land Registry,
my request was accepted by your Information Officer Julius Juispais in writing as being a valid request and that it would be answered within the accepted guideline time for such requests. Then it was not complied with.
The ICO accepted copy of my information request sent to Julius Juispais and copy of his reply, as being valid for investigation.
Then l am asked to provide this same information yet again , some months later.
Now l am instructed to write my Information Request again to the AHMLR .
If my Information Request is repeated , it is because l am directed to repeat it by the ICO.
This is purely tactics to discriminate against me as a registered disabled person. My disability is a protected characteristic .
Previously my fiancee and my carer have both written on my behalf to the AHMLR because of their ignoral of my writing myself

Yours sincerely,

Diana Smith

Adjudicator to HM Land Registry,

“Please note: this office will be closed for business from 2.30pm on 5th
July 2013 to 9 am on 8th July 2013 due to the relocation of the office. I
apologise for any inconvenience this may cause”.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for your email, for which I acknowledge receipt.  The contents
have been noted and you will be contacted in due course where appropriate.

 

Yours faithfully,

Gurvir Kaur

For the Adjudicator

 

ADDRESS:

7th Floor,

Victory House,

30 - 34 Kingsway,

London.

WC2B 6EX.

Tel: 0203 077 5800.

Fax 0870 739 4134 or 0203 077 5836

 

Please note:

From 1st July 2013 this email address will be changed. The new e-mail
address will be [email address]

 

From 8th July 2013 this office will be relocated. The new address will be

 

Property Chamber

Land Registration, First Tier Tribunal

3rd Floor, 10 Alfred Place

London, WC1E 7LR

 

Phone: 0207 291 7250

Fax: 0207 291 7251 or 0870 739 4134

 

 

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

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

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

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org