Maidstone - refusing court file to annul unlawful bankruptcy - DJ Susan Elizabeth Sullivan, DDJ Frank Winslett, DDJ Christopher Cagney, DDJ John William Eyley

Deb Williams made this Freedom of Information request to Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal

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, Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal,

Maidstone - refusing court file to annul unlawful bankruptcy - DJ Susan Elizabeth Sullivan, DDJ Frank Winslett, DDJ Christopher Cagney, DDJ John William Eyley

On the 11 October 2016 at the County Court in Maidstone many people turned up to support former Maidstone Cllr Sheena Williams at 'county court 2' when the Insolvency "service" who already knew that the Insolvency Act and rules have been ignored and broken by the Maidstone Borough Council and their agents, yet applied for an application for an order suspending automatic discharge of the unlawfully made bankruptcy order until she complies with the official receiver or trustees, so they can carve up her assets ; - is this to railroad her so they can all make money out of her home, including two trustees Michael Goldstein and James Paul Shaw of Meyers Clark in Watford who the council have suddenly appointed after saying that they had not?

Sheena has not only consistently been refused her bankruptcy case file from the county court since 11 May 2016 when the court made the order, but also District Judge Susan Elizabeth Sullivan's notes and Deputy District Judge Frank Winslett's notes, as well as her Subject Data Access Request still being withheld by both the courts and Maidstone Borough Council after Councillors had promised to ensure she received it.

Although, she has a letter from the county court confirming that she is correct that under the insolvency rules she does not need permission and must be allowed access to her case file and can obtain a copy; yet still she has received no appointment from the court to collect her file.

When we arrived early, to try to access the court file via the internal court telephone system because staff are no longer visible and spoke to Kelly who checked with her Manager Rachel Howard who said

" Sheena would need to get permission to access the court file from the judge at the hearing" even after Sheena had already explained that she had not received the case file under the Subject Data Access Request and only been sent part of a petition with Maidstone C Court written on it from the county court. Kelly appeared to be deliberately confused with the two separate issues; the collection of the court file and the access to the judges notes.

The Usher stated that the judge said that the hearing is to be held in private and not in public, which was disappointing for all of us that had travelled in the hope of seeing some justice. She also said that Sheena could only take one other individual in with her as her note-taker, whilst both the following were allowed in, Miss Cushley described as a "Learner" assistant and Ms Jackson Official Receiver from Chatham standing in for Justin Dion Official Receiver from Southend after Andrew Stanley Official Receiver from Chatham has suddenly retired; - was this retirement after over £3,600.00 was taken when the Insolvency Service closed down the bank account and yet the Subject Data Access Request from the Insolvency Service shows a 'nil balance'

Sheena objected to the secret private court and the presence of the trainee but her objections were ignored, as was a request for a copy of the judges notes and a copy of the case file; she was simply redirected back to the court Manager after the judge saying "Sheena did not need it" even though Sheena made it clear that she did and had a right to it under the Insolvency Rules 1986 in order to annul the unlawful bankruptcy order obtained by Maidstone Borough Council that ought not to have been made.

District Judge Sullivan could provide no authority that states that Insolvency hearings had to be held in private and made it clear that Sheena has to prove otherwise if she wanted a public hearing and not a secret one, even though no notice was placed outside the 'probate court county court 2' to state it was being held in private.

The judge also confirmed that she had a copy of the court file in front of her, this would also contain a copy of photographic evidence previously submitted of the statutory demand not being served correctly by the council process server Russell Sargent (video evidence on a USB and disk, had previously been refused, which was why a YouTube was made and sent to the court etc), the judge said that she had only received the email that contained the YouTube lunch-time, although she acknowledged that had been sent a week earlier.

The County Court and Maidstone Borough Council and the Insolvency Service etc are ALL aware that the Insolvency Act 1986 has been broken and Insolvency Rules 1986 ignored, and that the sum was below the bankruptcy threshold and misappropriated to the wrong year after being informed what year the sum was to be used for, council tax is a distinct insulated debt and not to be treated as a continuous running account. Revenues Manager Sheila Coburn also happened to give J E Baring & Co the council's external solicitors firm who also ignored both the law and the rules and gave them a reference on their website and provided false information to the court to obtain a bankruptcy order from Deputy District Judge John William Eyley, after Deputy District Judge Christopher Cagney refused to set aside the statutory demand after being presented with evidence of wrongful service.

Sheena explained that she has experienced nothing but bias within the county court; and it was quite obvious to her that the judge had no intention of letting her have a fair and just hearing or she would have adjourned to at least view the YouTube evidence in the email, sent to her at least seven days beforehand although it was not given to her until the lunch-time by her court staff, and prior to making a decision to go ahead and grant an order. So Sheena once again tried to get hold of her case file outside the court using the internal telephone system, but an extremely rude female called "Leslie" made it clear that it was tough and said "this is how it is going to be" before hanging up.

No case file or appointment to view and obtain a copy of the case file has been forthcoming from the County Court.

Council Tax, Unlawful Bankruptcy, Merchants of Menace: Shylock & Shysters
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEf9eH59cUY

Questions to be answered under the FOIA:

1. Why has the County Court not annulled this bankruptcy order of its own accord, as it ought not to have been made.

2. What actions has the County Court taken against Maidstone Borough Council staff and their agents. 

3. Please provide the section of the law or rule that states the County Court can refuse to provide the court case file.

4. Please also provide a copy of the authority that states the permission of the judge is required and state how a copy of the court file can be obtained.

5. Please confirm a copy of the case file is no longer required or necessary to obtain an annulment of an order that ought not to have been made and give the reasons why. 

6. Please provide the authority that confirms that bankruptcy and insolvency matters must be held in private. 

7. Please confirm if a sign is required to be placed outside if the court is sitting in private.

8. Confirm why bankruptcy matters are being held in a probate court.

9. Why District Judge Sullivan's general order dated 11 October 2016 is on two separate pieces of paper and does not include the name of Ms Jackson Official Receiver who was present and only refers to Fiona Cushley 'for the Official Receiver' 

10.Please confirm how it is possible to pay a fee for an annulment at the County Court if no staff are available to accept the paperwork or fee. 

11.Please provide a list of courts other than the County Court at Maidstone for an annulment.
12. How many complaints the Adjudicator's Office has looked into concerning Chatham Insolvency Service and Southend Insolvency Service, and both dealing with the same insolvency case.
13 . Please confirm if it is possible for Southend Insolvency Service to be dealing with a county court insolvency case that is not within its jurisdiction area, such as Maidstone.
14. And why the Insolvency service and Practioners have not annulled this case when it ought not to have been made.

Yours faithfully,

Deb Williams

Insolvency.EnquiryLine, Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal

Thank you for your email to the Insolvency Enquiry Line.

 

We will reply within 15 working days of receiving your email, if a reply
is needed.

 

Our reply will state the name and phone number of the person replying. If
we need to do more research before we can give a full reply, we will send
an interim reply within 5 working days.

 

It will tell you when you can expect a full reply. In practice, we
normally respond to 90% of email enquiries within 2 working days.

 

The enquiry line is not staffed overnight or on weekends. So emails sent
at these times will be received on the next working day.

 

Our opening times are:

 

Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm

 

We are closed on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.

 

If you wish, you can also contact us by telephone on 0300 678 0015 – by
selecting option 3, followed by option 5.

 

You may also find the information that you require on our website at
[1]http://www.gov.uk/insolvency-service

 

This email is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended
recipient then you have received this e-mail in error and any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited. You
should contact the sender by return then delete all the material from your
system.

www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency

###############################################################

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/insolvency-service

Deb Williams left an annotation ()

Is this the reason former Cllr Sheena Williams was made unlawfully bankrupt to stop her standing again for election ?

Anyone who is the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order or interim order can not stand.

And why was there no pending action registered before a bankrutpcy restriction order ?

Deb Williams left an annotation ()

Apparently it does not matter what a Judge does as long as they do not swear or fall asleep in court etc

Any complaint about how the judge manages or mis-manages a case to suit their decision and "agenda" is just ignored.

The Judiciary look after their own and the council it's called railroading for profit.

Ed Boyce left an annotation ()

STEDLYN Retreat Management Limited
Nature of - Residents property management
Accountants - MYERS CLARK
Director William Edward Cornall appointed 6 December 2012

William Cornall - Maidstone Borough Council Director of Regeneration and Place, Corporate Leadership Management Team

Ed Boyce left an annotation ()

MYERS CLARK INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE CONSENT ORDER (031561) 20 January 2017

DISCIPLINARY ORDERS AND REGULATORY DECISIONS 1 February 2017

With the agreement of Myers Clark Limited of Egale 1, 80 St Albans Road, Watford, WD17 1DL, the Investigation Committee made an order that the firm be reprimanded, fined £3,250 and pay costs of £2,730 with respect to a complaint that:

1. Myers Clark Ltd prepared dormant statutory accounts for X Limited for the year ended 31 March 2015 in which the directors claimed exemption from audit, when the company’s Articles of Association required that the accounts of the company be examined and the correctness of the Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet ascertained by one or more properly qualified Auditor or Auditors. 


2. Myers Clark Ltd prepared dormant statutory accounts for X Limited for the year ended 31 March 2015 which do not comply with The Small Companies and Groups (Accounts and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2008 in that the accounts do not:

a. consistently apply the accounting policies previously adopted by the company and do not disclose the reasons and effect of the change in accounting policies: 

b. show the corresponding amounts for the immediate proceeding financial year or contain any disclosures in the notes as to the reason for any adjustments: and 

c. disclose the fact that the company has acted as an agent for any person during the financial year. 


https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/...