Location of dwellings in Seaforth built by Maritime Housing Association

fred robinson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Tenant Services Authority

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

The request was successful.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you identify by address the dwellings built by Maritime and funded by the Corporation in Seaforth.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Foia TSA, Tenant Services Authority

Dear Mr Robinson

I write in response to your Freedom of Information request shown below.

I am afraid we are unable to assist you in this matter as we do not hold
the information which you have requested.

On the 1st December 2008 the Housing Corporation was replaced by two new
agencies. The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and the Tenant Services
Authority (TSA). The remit of the Homes and Communities agency includes
queries about buying an affordable home, investment in social housing -
including: grant funding, bidding and design and quality standards. The
TSA on the other hand is the regulator of Social Housing.

As you enquiry relates to funding you should address it Homes and
Communities Agency - [1][email address].

Final comments:

If you are dissatisfied with my response, you may request an internal
review. To do this you should contact Mr Anthony McCann, Board Secretary,
at TSA, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7BN. You should
make your application no later than 40 working days from when you receive
this response. Once you have been through our internal review process you
may then contact the Information Commissioner whose address is Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Marianne Zierau | Information and Complaints Assistant
Tenant Services Authority
Maple House | 149 Tottenham Court Road | London W1T 7BN
T: 020 7393 2283
E: [2][email address]
W: [3]www.tenantservicesauthority.org

ü Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or its
attachments

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Foia TSA,

Are you saying you have no information or record of how public money is spent providing the social housing by the organisations you give that money to.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Foia TSA,

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

Catherine Moran,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your recent request for information, submitted to the
Tenants Services Authority (TSA). As advised by the TSA, the functions of
the Housing Corporation have now been split between two new agencies: the
Tenants Services Authority and the Homes and Communities Agency.

Your request for information has, therefore, been transferred to the Homes
and Communities Agency for our consideration.

Please find attached our acknowledgement of receipt of your request.

Regards

Catherine Moran

Information Access Officer

Homes and Communities Agency

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Catherine Moran,

YOUR DOWNLOAD:

Thank you for your recent request for information, submitted to the
Tenants Services Authority (TSA). As advised by the TSA, the functions
of the Housing Corporation have now been split between two new agencies:
the Tenants Services Authority and the Homes and Communities Agency.

Your request for information has, therefore, been transferred to the
Homes and Communities Agency for our consideration.

Please find attached our acknowledgement of receipt of your request.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR RESPONSE.

Yours sincerely,
fred robinson

Catherine Moran,

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your request has been passed to the Homes and
Communities Agency for consideration, as per the acknowledgement
attached to my previous email.

Regards

Catherine Moran
Information Access Officer
Homes and Communities Agency

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Catherine Moran,

HANK YOU FOR YOU E-MAIL BELOW:

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your request has been passed to the Homes and
Communities Agency for consideration, as per the acknowledgement
attached to my previous email.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Catherine Moran,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

“IF YOU WISH TO FIND THE CRIMINALS, DON’T FOLLOW THE CRIMINALS, FOLLOW THE MONEY.”

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

In 1962: Crosby Council, initiated a compulsory purchase order to buy a plot of land to the south of Lime Grove consisting of Maple Grove, Willow Grove, Bangor Street and Beaumaris Street which is shown on OS SJ3396.

This land was subsequently filed under title LA45343 at the Land Registry.

In December 1964: Land to the north of Lime Grove, bought under a compulsory purchase order by Crosby Council, was registered under title LA45086 at the Land Registry using OS SJ3396 dated 1955.

By 1968: Numerous streets to the north of 19 Lime Grove, including 21 Lime Grove, had been demolished, the land cleared, and maisonettes built on it. This land became known as the Kepler Street Estate.

One of the maisonette blocks, 21 to 39 Lime Grove, was built some 5 metres from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove.

The level of the land adjacent to 19 Lime Grove was consequently lowered by Crosby Council’s contractors to accommodate the building of these maisonettes, and the support that this land had previously given to 19 Lime Groves gable wall was removed and, in so doing, exposed the shallow footing of part of 19 Lime Grove’s gable wall.

Crosby Council’s building contractors, Mathew and Mumby, subsequently replaced the former support with two Party Boundary Structures in the forms of what are known as, the ‘screen wall' and the 'old footings' some 700mm square which were constructed abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around 1968.

The first and most significant of these structures being the ‘old footings.’ The term 'old footings' a misnomer as they 'footed' nothing and were in fact a ‘buttress.’ They remain in place today and, with the land they stand on, are, and have been since 1994, the property of Maritime Housing Association.

The second was a wall built abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around its centre, and extending to abut the gable wall of the maisonette block, 21 to 39 Lime Grove near its front elevation.

The location of this wall is of some significance as it was constructed at the point where the footings of the gable wall descend into a cellar and thus obviate the need for support beyond that point.

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

This is borne out by the fact that the brick cladding of the gable wall of the maisonettes was, the same brick as used to construct the screen wall, and obviously, both structures stood on Crosby Council’s land.

The structure the ‘screen wall’ was first shown on OS SJ3396 in October 1969, and by October 1989, (according to a ruling in the House of Lords) 19 Lime Grove had obtained a legal right to the support it gave.

Beyond the rear of the screen wall where, the footings were exposed by the excavation of the land, is where the old footings abutted it, and from there commenced, it is abundantly clear that no other purpose can be attributed to this constructions other than to give support to the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove and, that purpose, in the absence of any other, would be obvious to an engineer, architect, surveyor or any competent builder.

This contention is borne out by the fact that the old footings extend beyond the gable wall and continue to give support not only to the gable wall but also to the boundary wall which, extends some four metres from the gable wall.

The ‘old footings’ are still in situ but, have never been recorded on an OS map. They could not be removed at any time after 1984 without causing structural damage to my property.

In 1973: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which did not included the Star of the Sea Junior School, built in 1974, but did included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In 1978: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which included the Star of the Sea Junior School, the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In March 1977: The land, known as the Kepler Street Estate, filed at the Land Registry in 1964 under the title number LA45343 using the 1969 OS SJ3396 map: had removed from it a parcel of land re-registered under title MS351603 which included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In April 1977 The land filed at the Land Registry under title number LA45343 using OS SJ3396 dated 1966: had removed from it two parcels of land that were also re-registered under title MS351603. The 1966 OS SJ3396 did not include the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove, because in 1966 they had not been built.

In 1984/5 Sefton Council revamped the maisonettes including 21 to 39 Lime Grove and reduced the screen wall from some 5 metres long to a 'nib wall' some 1.5 metres long and built a pier on its end.

Clearly Sefton Council also attached some significance to the screen wall’s role of support to my gable wall, and just as clearly, their actions prove that they owned it by virtue of them reducing and strengthening it, something Maritime Housing Association seemed unaware of, because when they wrote to me on October 5th 1999 - in response to a photograph of the nib wall in situ, taken by Sefton Council (their appointed agents) on March 14th 1994 during a survey which, in June 2000, Maritime did know about and, which they also (then, if not before) knew was prior to the demolition of the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove - they stated:

“Sefton as our agent, are responsible for controlling building operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still taking place up to September 1994, which had nothing to do with Maritime…looking at the photograph you have sent me I notice what appears to be either a newly built brick pier attached to your wall, or an old pier that has been repointed…I would question who constructed, or repointed, the brick pier. ”

In 1989: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

“Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

On September 25th 1992: The three titles, taken from Titles LA54086 and LA45343, and filed under MS351603, were Registered separately to Sefton MBC at Bootle Town Hall, and Southport Town Hall.

On October 28th 1993: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub Committee resolved, that:

“Demolition of maisonette blocks at Kepler Street prior to development by Maritime Housing Association. (1) That the appropriate officer be authorised to implement the demolition works by acceptance of the tender of GTB Demolition company…in the sum of £95,693 subject to the land being acquired by Maritime Housing Association by December 31st 1993. That subject to (1) above the Borough Property Services Officer be authorised to issue a letter of intent in advance of formal contract documentation.”

On December 16th 1992: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub Committee considered the report of the Borough Property Services Officer recommending the transfer of land for two new build sites to Maritime Housing Association.

On December 13th 1993: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On December 24th 1993 Sefton Council and Maritime Housing Association, after taxation, signed and sealed the transfer documents for the sale of 3.5 acres of land under titles 1. (a) LA45086 and (b) LA45343.

This land consisted of the three plots filed in March and April 1977 with the Land Registry under the title numbers LA45086 and LA45343 re-referenced to Sefton on September 25th 1992 which, the transfer document shows were to be given a new title number with another two parcels of land, i.e.:

(c) the land comprised in an agreement dated 7 August 1967 made between Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocese & Trustees Incorporating (1) and the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby.

(d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated December 16th 1993 made by Michael Scott.

There were on December 24th 1993, to my knowledge, five distinct OS SJ3396, maps of the Kepler Street estate available, they were:

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

The fifth dated December 13th 1993 – showing no screen wall

Bound with the transfer documents was a ‘cut and pasted’ version of OS map SJ3396 comprising of: an ‘outer section’ being OS SJ3396 dated 1978 showing the Star of the Sea School and,

an ‘inner section’ depicting the land filed under titles MS351603, united by a section of public highway named Maple Close.

The screen wall, despite being on both of the versions of OS SJ3396 used in the forgery, had been erased from this transfer map.

The altered OS map SJ3396 provided for sale of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depict the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as neither Sefton or Maritime showed "due diligence" in the sale of the land in breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

“It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of the date herein between the property herby transferred and the adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are maintainable and repairable as such.”

This land is identified at 3, of the transfer documents as land referenced by Planning Permission as 93/03897/S. this reference was given to me by Sefton Council’s Planning Department as land provided for: “Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

This permission was the permission granted on August 13th 1993.

The above dwellings are all now in situ on the land registered to Sefton Council under title MS351603 on September 25th 1992, taken from title LA43086 1977.

These dwellings are also identified in a ‘memo’ from Sefton’s Mr Barr, to Sefton’s Mr Williams: Referenced HSG 1188/2, and dated November 12th 1999 in which Mr Barr states, with regard to 19 Lime Grove – with a twist as to responsibility:

“This particular dwelling lies within an area which was redeveloped by the Council in conjunction with Maritime Housing Association during the period January 1994 to September 1995. The work basically involved the demolition of 7 blocks of 4 storey maisonettes and the construction of 49 new 2 storey traditionally built houses as part of the City Challenge program relating to relocation of residents of the former Rimrose Housing Estate.”

And further, with another twist:

On November 16th 1999, Fawley Construction, Maritime’s Building contractor, wrote the following to me:

1. “Our site plan 417/01 was adapted from Sefton Council’s drawing HSG 1187.1A which did not show a nib wall attached to your property, therefore one was not included on our drawing submitted for planning approval.”

2. Drawing HSG 1187, a used as part of the transfer map, and is marked as a Sefton Planning Department drawing based on OS SJ3396 dated 1978, which has had the screen wall erased from it.

3. This clearly shows that Sefton and Fawley, if not Maritime, had a drawing, and knowledge, at the planning stage of the development in August 1993 that showed no nib wall abutting my gable wall. All three had contractual obligations to each other.

On August 31st 1994 the land shown on the forged OS map used to transfer the land at both Kepler Street, shown on title LA45086, and Maple Grove, shown on LA45343 which was united by the public highway, Maple Close, was registered by the Land Registry under title MS351603 to Maritime Housing, at 2, of the office copy of the Property Register dated February 3rd 2006, it states:

“2. (21.01.1994) A transfer of the land in this title dated 24 December 1993 made between (1) The metropolitan Borough of Sefton and (2) Maritime Housing Association Limited contains the following provision:-

2, It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of the date herein between the property herby transferred and the adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are maintainable and repairable as such.”

The title map that accompanies this title is a forgery which again, like the transfer map is composed of two versions of OS SJ3386 cut and pasted together, this time, the outer section is that of OS SJ3396 dated 1984 showing the Star of the Sea junior school, and the inner section, that of OS SJ3396 dated 1969, clumsily overlaid on it which has, amongst other things, removed the pavement between Seaforth Road and 19 Lime Grove and the entire pavement from Seaforth Road and the opposite side of Lime Grove through to Maple Close from it.

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

The altered OS map SJ3396 draw by the Land Registry for registration of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depicts the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as the Registry did not show "due diligence" in the production of this title map and also breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Catherine Moran,

I am currently out of the office and will return on Tuesday 27 January
2009.

If you wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, please forward
your enquiry to [email address]. Please note your email
will not be automatically forwarded.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Catherine Moran,

OK

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Catherine Moran,

I am currently out of the office and will return on Monday 2 February
2009.

If you wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, please forward
your enquiry to [email address]. Please note your email
will not be automatically forwarded.

show quoted sections

Catherine Moran,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your recent request for information, received in pursuance
of the Freedom of Information Act.

We have now completed our investigations into your request, and our
response is attached.

Regards

Catherine Moran

Information Access Officer

Homes and Communities Agency

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Catherine Moran,

YOUR RESPONSE:

Request for Information
Thank you for your recent enquiry, which requested information in pursuance of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). For clarification, the wording of your request was as follows:

“Will you identify by address the dwellings built by Maritime and funded by the Corporation in Seaforth.”

As you are aware, the functions of the Housing Corporation have now been divided between two new organisations: the Tenants Services Authority and the Homes and Communities Agency. Your request was submitted to the Tenants Services Authority, but has been transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency for our consideration.

We have now completed our investigations into your request for information, and are able to respond as follows. Having undertaken a search of our records, we can confirm a development at 18-26 Church Road, Seaforth, was developed by Maritime. We do not hold any records of any other properties with Seaforth in the address.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this response or any further queries. If you are unhappy with the way Homes and Communities Agency has handled your request you may ask for an internal review. You should contact

Legal Assistant

FOR THE ABSENCE OF DOUBT ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT APART FROM THE DEVELOPMENT IN CHURCH ROAD, THE CORPORATION DID NOT FUND MARITIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE SEAFORTH ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Catherine Moran,

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email.

Having checked with my colleagues I can confirm that there are no
further schemes in our microfilm records for Maritime in Seaforth.

However, please note that we have only been able to search on the search
terms provided. It is possible that if any errors were made in entering
the data, our search will not be picking up the addresses to which you
have referred.

You may wish to check with Maritime to see if they can supply you with
the identification number for the development, and we will be able to
undertake a further search for you.

Kind regards

Catherine Moran
Information Access Officer
Homes and Communities Agency

show quoted sections