Lin Homer investigating claims HMRC Whistleblower labelled extremist by HMRC for heckling the British National Party at peaceful protest.

The request was refused by HM Revenue and Customs.

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Can you tell me how many times an HMRC employee or former HMRC employee has written to Lin Homer in the last six months asking her department to amend documentation which states they are an extremist for heckling the British National Party(BNP)- a Neo Nazi group which has sought to remove all non-whites and Jews from the department.

Please state how many of these requests to amend this incorrect information was made under the Data Protection Act and please provide all documentation showing how HMRC dealt with it. For example, all correspondence from Lin Homer asking her staff to look into it.

Please also state if the documentation was amended or whether HMRC still maintained staff or former staff were extremists for heckling the BNP?

Yours faithfully,

Andi Ali

HM Revenue and Customs

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your communication of 7 March 2014, please note that this
is being dealt with under the reference FOI 1473/14 and the response
will be with you in due course.

HMRC
Freedom of Information Team

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.

HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for lawful purposes.

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any personal views of the sender.

This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.

show quoted sections

Zachary left an annotation ()

Andi

Take the matter up with The Information Commissioner's Office under the Data Protection Act. HMRC are legally obliged to amend incorrect data. The Information Commissioner's Office has power to take action against HMRC if they don't.

You will not receive an answer to this FOIA request. The information is exempt.

HM Revenue and Customs

I am answering under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).

This letter is the refusal notice required by section 17 of the FOIA.
This is the part of the Act that sets out the how public authorities
must reply when they refuse to supply information.

HMRC considers your request as vexatious and will not be complying with
it as provided by section 14(1) of the FOIA. In reaching this decision
we have taken account of previous requests of a similar nature you have
made to HMRC since 2011. All of those requests are on the whatdotheyknow
website along with our responses.

I draw your attention to section 17(6) FOIA which says that public
authorities do not need to issue further refusal notices if they have
given the applicant a previous refusal notice for a vexatious request
and it would be unreasonable to issue another one. If you make further
requests relating to the same or similar information, HMRC will not
reply.

If you are not happy with this reply you may request a review by writing
to HMRC FOI Team, Room 1C/23, 100 Parliament Street, London SW1A 2BQ or
email [email address] you must request a review within 2
months of the date of this letter. It would assist our review if you set
out which aspects of the reply concern you and why you are dissatisfied.

If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
information Commissioner will not usually consider a case unless you
have exhausted the internal review procedure provided by HMRC. He can be
contacted at The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Margaret Earing | Freedom of Information Team | Information Policy &
Disclosure | Room C1/23 | 100 Parliament Street
SW1A 2BQ | Tuesday - Friday

show quoted sections

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'Lin Homer investigating claims HMRC Whistleblower labelled extremist by HMRC for heckling the British National Party at peaceful protest.'.

I'm sorry you believe this request vexatious - I assure you it is a genuine request and one which is certainly in the public interest. As such please supply the information I request, or I will refer it to the Information Commissioner for his action.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Yours faithfully,

Andi Ali

HM Revenue and Customs

1 Attachment

FOI Ref 1473/14 - Internal review response
 
 

The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.

 

HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.

 

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.

 

This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.

show quoted sections

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

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Zachary,
what do you make of this?

P Freeman left an annotation ()

You have to love the HMRC who post FoI replies to this public web site with a confidentiality statement:

"The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately."

And then disclaim responsibility for the contents of an official FoI response:

"The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any personal views of the sender."

And to top it all tell you that you cannot rely on the response as it might have been hacked:

"This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered."

P Freeman left an annotation ()

P.S. Andi,

As I have commented before, the style in which you ask these questions has a direct bearing on the response you receive. If you keep the emotion out of your questions and ask for statistical information, you may get a better response (though your history will now count against you and the topics of your questions are likely to identify you if you ask them under a different userid).

P Freeman left an annotation ()

Andi

This site generates publicly viewable FoI requests. It cannot be used for private requests to amend data under the Data Protection Act.

The Data Protection Act allows you (privately) to:

a. Request a copy of the data held by e.g. HMRC about you as an individual.

b. Request that factual inaccuracies are removed.

If you suspect that HMRC is holding records about you that are factually incorrect, then this is the way to address that.

FoI requests are the way to get non-personally identifiable (e.g. statistical) information from HMRC.

As for refusing your FoI request on the basis that it is vexatious, (whilst I am on your side and sympathetic) I am afraid that I agree with HMRC that the style of your questions make them vexatious and as stated, they no longer even need to respond to any further questions from you. I say this because I think that ICO is likely to view them the same way. Sorry.

Zachary left an annotation ()

As previously stated, the request was not appropriate as you were seeking personal information about you that is exempt under the FOIA.

HMRC have chosen to ban you for, in effect, life from making any further FOIA requests to them.

Take on board P Freeman's comments.

Seek advice from the Information Commissioners Office, ICO, as to what circumstances would allow you to make future FOIA requests from HMRC that would have a successful outcome if HMRC refused to respond, leading to you making a formal complaint to ICO.

P Freeman left an annotation ()

As Zachery points out, it is NOT appropriate for HMRC to ban you for life, though I am not sure that is quite what they said.

"If you make further requests relating to the same or similar information, HMRC will not reply."

So, I would suggest that you:

1. Read sections 14 and 17 of the FoI act to understand what is meant by vexatious.

2. Read up about how to make FoI requests that are statistical rather than personal in nature.

3. Create a new WhatDoTheyKnow account and make a new unemotional, non-personal (i.e. not directed at or about an individual member of HMRC staff) polite request for factual, statistical, non-personal information (i.e. not a request for information about an individual).

4. I would suggest that you ask how many times for each of the past 6 years HMRC has used a specific anti-terrorist legislation as the basis for conducting investigations of employees or contractors. Information about use of anti-terrorism legislation for non-terrorist investigations is definitely in the public interest.

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

I am somewhat confused by the following:

1) Why would this case be classed under the Data Protection Act? (You will note that not even HMRC class it as a DPA request.

2)I have never been impolite - why then the need to advise me on that matter?

3) HMRC do not have the power to ignore FOI requests.

4) When a public body refuses to answer a request they still have to say so - that initself can be revealing.

5) Thanks to whatdotheyknow - HMRC have admitted that the disciplinary procedures they used to sack me do not exist, this has already meant that under Civil Service rules, I can now apply for reinstatement.

6) HMRC have told the Civil Service Commissioners they did not sack me for raising concerns under the Public Interest Disclosure Act - seeing as that was what they told me (in writing) they had sacked me for at time - that is another ground for reinstatement.

The point being gentlemen, the is method behind my 'madness'.

Zachary left an annotation ()

Andi

1) because you are specifically seeking information about an individual, I.E. YOU. That is personal information. The FOIA exempts such information.

2) that is your perspective, not HMRC's. It is HMRC's and ICO/Tribunal that count.

3) yes they do if it is judged to be vexatious, ultimately by Tribunal

4) HMRC have told you once, that is all they have to do.

5) were you not in fact sacked for a breakdown of trust between HMRC and yourself. Your letter of termination will clearly state the reason.

6) as stated in 5, HMRC sacked you due to a breakdown of trust.

Whilst you may have a legitimate grievance, you have not focused on the full detail of the events that have led you to believe HMRC racism existed. Nor have you presented your case in a proper manner.

May I suggest that you seek assistance from an independent third party who can look at all the complaints, internal interviews etc and provide guidance.

P Freeman left an annotation ()

Good advice Zachary, though I fear that Andi's anger is clouding his thinking and he will not take this to heart.

(I have been there, and so I am both sympathetic and understand how you cannot evaluate stuff in an unbiased way / see it how others will see it - but it doesn't help his cause. An independent 3rd party will not be clouded by emotion and I think could be very helpful.)

P.S. I think you have no chance of reinstatement - the trust has been broken by HMRC behaviour - but you might get compensation for unfair dismisal. If the time for bringing a case has not been exceeded.

P.P.S. If you have a real chance for compensation, you might find an employment lawyer who will take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

1) HMRC paid me tens of thousands in compensation.

2) They reinstate me.

3) I resigned when they told me they were not going to take action against those who had made false statements, made false sexual allegations, and misused public funds for the BNP. (All criminal offences)

Zachary left an annotation ()

Andi

Could you please clarify. Were you sacked or did you resign? If the latter, was it because you had lost trust and confidence in HMRC, HMRC was institutionally corrupt?

P Freeman left an annotation ()

Yes - I would also like to understand. From what you have said it sounds like...

1. They fired you because of what you said against the BNP, after having used anti-terrorism legislation to gather the information used to support this.

2. They reinstated you and paid you compensation.

3. They refused to take disciplinary actions against people who misused information / lied that led to you being fired in the first place - so you resigned (could possibly be construed as constructive dismissal).

4. You now want the people in 3. to be held to account and to be reinstated again.

This sounds complicated, and I am really not sure what the employment rights position might be - and I imagine it will depend on the grounds you might be using (i.e. constructive dismissal is very different from e.g. racial or religious discrimination). It would (I imagine) also depend on what you might have had to sign when you accepted the first compensation.

However, none of this makes any difference to how you should (or need to) approach making FoI requests if you want to have any success with them.

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Yes it is confusing isn’t it.

To explain: I worked at the Tax Credit Office in Preston and blew the whistle that my line manager was manipulating statistics in order to make it looked as though the team was performing better than it was. The very next day I got stabbed outside Downing Street by Neo Nazi’s who objected to my academic research on the British National Party (BNP) which I had been pursuing at the University of Central Lancashire, as part of my Masters Degree. For the last year Neo Nazi’s had been harassing and warning me if I did stop stop my studies I would end up with a bullet in my head. When I refused they made false sexual allegations against me and labelled me a suicide bomber. You can read my autobiography on all of this by going here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Paki-Walkin...

Anyway, when I came out of hospital I was told if I withdrew my claim that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) was manipulating statistics I would get a very good appraisal and promotion - I refused. HMRC then charged me with being an extremist for heckling the BNP, sexual harassment, expressing support for suicide bombers. After a two year investigation, they found me guilty of all but sexual harassment because I went to the police. (The charges by the way, was precisely the same allegations Neo Nazi’s had been making about me)

I then took the case to a employment tribunal.

HMRC then asked the tribunal to grant a delay while they undertook another investigation. To cut a long story short, after two years HMRC concluded, (after the tribunal forced them to release documents) that:

1) Staff had made false statements regarding sexual harassment against me

2) They made false allegations and statements regarding expressing support for suice bombers.

3) There was nothing extremist for heckling the BNP and I should never have been charged let alone convicted of said offence.

They then paid thousands in compensation.

They give no explanation about why public funds had been so misused to charge me with being an extremist for heckling the BNP, but said, all charges against me were being dropped because they had not followed the correct disciplinary procedures.

I then raised concerns with the Civil Service Commission under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA)

A few weeks after this, I was taken into an office and told if I dropped my case with the tribunal I would be promoted but if not sacked - I refused.

I then raised concerns under the PIDA again.
A few weeks later I was sacked for breach of contract for raising concerns under the PIDA.

I appealed but lost - the appeal officer however, did not make a ruling on my PIDA disclosure - merely said it was for others to decide.

HMRC settled the case (they paid tens of thousands) before the tribunal hearing. However, a judge has given a ruling that because the appeal officer did not make a finding on the PIDA issue, merely said it was for others to decide, I can refer the matter to a tribunal when they do. (The ruling was last year)

HMRC reinstituted my contract, but as they refused to say why HMRC made false claims and false witness statements against me, and in fact promoted them, I resigned.

However, in recent months, HMRC have informed me that they give me wrong information on many issues which led to my resignation.

1) For example, they have told me (and the Civil Service Commission) that they did not sack me for raising concerns under the PIDA.

2) They have told me they have no record of authorizing the investigating officer to charge me with breach of contract.

3) They have told me they do not have breach of contract procedures - the procedures they used to sack me with in the first place.

Given that they have now informed me that the reason I resigned was based on incorrect information, I have - or will when I get he full facts - apply for reinstatement.

For more about this case go here: http://studyingthebnp.blogspot.co.uk/

P Freeman left an annotation ()

Wow - you can call your next book "Hokey Cokey at the HMRC".

I would imagine that there are lots of processes and procedures in place for disciplinary processes involving HR and senior management, so for this to happen to this extent, with so many people involved (in the lies - perhaps coerced by similar promises / threats, and various management levels) there would seem to be a deep-rooted and widespread culture of bullying and mis-management in HMRC.

I can see why you want all this to be out in the open.

P Freeman left an annotation ()

That said, I have now taken a quick look at your blog, and aside from discovering that you are indeed writing a second book, I am forming the impression that, rather than to gather real facts which you can use to show the breadth and depth of corruption in HMRC, you are asking FoI questions in the way you do in order to justify sensational posts to your blog and get nasty sounding letters from HMRC which you can then publish verbatim in the book.

I also think that some of the conclusions you draw in the text on the back of the proposed cover for your next book are somewhat unlikely - for example, HMRC seem to me to be very unlikely to sack you just because some strangers who turn up at your office ask them to, though I could understand that they might do so either if they were already looking for an excuse or if there was widespread membership of the BNP within HMRC - but you are not saying either of these.

In my opinion, marshalling the facts, presenting them to the reader and then deducing what might have been happening based on these facts is a far more powerful way of persuading people to your point of view than salacious allegations which don't seem logical and (playing devils advocate - because I do believe that you are the victim of a big scandal and a widespread institutional cover-up) which sound more like wild allegations made by an angry ex-employee with a big chip on their shoulder.

I know it can be very hard to be logical and dispassionate when you have been treated the way that you have, but if you can do this then your case will sound all the more real and disgraceful.

Zachary left an annotation ()

Andi, this is potentially explosive but as P Freeman and I have flagged up you need to present the full evidence/facts.

The head of HMRC Tax Credits, at the time, Richard Summersgill has been flagged up as a racist elsewhere.

From what you have presented so far, HMRC Institutional Corruption and Racism existed. You alone are unlikely to have been subjected to such behaviour.

Present all the documents you have to an independent third party to review and point you in the right direction.

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Gentlemen,

perhaps you would care to read this letter from Ann Chant - then the Chairwoman of the Inland Revenue (now HMRC))

http://studyingthebnp.blogspot.co.uk/201...

Andi Ali left an annotation ()

Case sent to the Information Commissioner - 9 September, 2014.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org