Perjury allegation

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to North East Lincolnshire Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended)

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

I have found in the link below, a complaint, supposedly sent to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/288873729/Jud...

A paragraph from that complaint is quoted below (under the heading, "Criminal Allegations"):

"There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs."

Also there are exhibits (Annex A to C) which were supposedly submitted by the council to the Magistrates' court which support the allegations that a false and corrupt statement had been made.

See another quote from that document in the link:

"Annex A to C

The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action taken as a consequence, the justice system’s reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the court."

Q. Will NELC confirm whether these exhibits were actually sent to the Magistrates court in respect of the council tax liability hearing which was held on 30 October 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Stan Higgleston

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

 

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for information, which has been
allocated the reference number NEL/0898/1516.

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and
you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will
take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you
of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of
Information requests is available on our website at:
[1]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or
assistance quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston,

 

Thank you for your information request, reference number 0898_1516.

 

I wish to confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council holds the following
information.

 

Request: Will NELC confirm whether these exhibits were actually sent to
the Magistrates court in respect of the council tax liability hearing
which was held on 30 October 2015.

 

Response: We are unable to view any information on the link provided.
Please can you clarify what information you are linking to and provide a
legible version of the information. Please note, if the information is
personal information relating to you we may be unable to address this
through the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

 

If you believe that your request for information has not been handled in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, you have the right to
request an internal review by the Council. Please be clear about which
elements of the Council’s response or handling of the request you are
unhappy with, and would like the Council to address during the internal
review process.  If following this you are still dissatisfied you may
contact the Office of the Information Commissioner. If you wish to request
an internal review, please contact me and I will make the necessary
arrangements.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

Resources Directorate

 

show quoted sections

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended)

Dear PPD - FOI,

This should be sufficient information to ID the main document. I will try and arrange some way of supplying the other material (Annex A to C)

Case number Not known Date of Hearing 30 October 2015

Is your case still
ongoing No

JCIO – Complaint form (09.13)

Brief description of your complaint

Category
of complaint Miscellaneous

Description of your complaint

Background to case
North East Lincs Council (the 'Claimant') erroneously applied for a liability order for non-payment of council tax due to misallocating monies to a sum that had arisen from a previous year’s summons costs, which were disputed and appealed to the High Court. That sum was suspended pending the court's decision; therefore no payments in respect of the current liability were ever overdue. The case (High Court) is yet to be determined so the costs still suspended; therefore, under no circumstances was it a sum to which the Claimant could legitimately allocate payment.
Myself (the "Defendant") submitted extensive evidence to support that i) the appeal (as alleged) had never been withdrawn and so the suspension of costs from the account never lifted, ii) payments were in any event inferred by the circumstances to be appropriated to the current liability, iii) it was inconceivable that the summons costs as applied on making complaint could have been incurred by the claimant, as per the Claimant’s breakdown.
The Claimant made a statement (material in the proceedings) which he knew to be false, to the effect that the appeal challenging the costs had been withdrawn. Indisputable evidence was submitted to support why the statement was untrue and why the Claimant could not have believed it to have been true. The Defendant's suspicion that the statement was made with deliberate intent to deceive the court was made clear in those representations.

Professional Misconduct
The judge was unwilling to listen to, accept or understand any evidence which didn't fit in with the pre-determined outcome (to accept the false statement to justify granting the order). It was sensed throughout the hearing that the judge pretended to be out of his depth as a strategy for denying evidence that might, if considered, defeat the Claimant's argument and make granting the order more difficult to justify. His ineptitude was almost certainly put on for show; therefore a description far more accurate would be of 'Professional Misconduct' than that of incompetence.

Criminal Allegations
The judge was so lacking in objectivity and obviously pro-prosecution that had an unsighted person walked into the courtroom he would have almost certainly mistaken him as the Claimant's barrister, albeit one grasping at straws, raising irrelevant matters with the intention of hoodwinking the bench. It can therefore be stated unreservedly that there had been not even a hint of a fair hearing.
There seems no doubt that the judge had acted with intent to pervert the course of justice as he had before him indisputable evidence that a false and corrupt statement had been made. Granting an order therefore made him complicit in the Claimant's criminal actions that sought to exploit a complaint to the court for the purposes of defrauding the Defendant with an attached claim of costs.

Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
His manner (the judge) was antagonistic and belittling and although there was no retaliation to speak of, the provocation was such that a conflict could have easily arisen. It is easily seen how such an approach might be used to distract attention from the case in order to discredit someone or simply to goad someone who the judge took a personal dislike to. If such incidents have occurred, which is difficult to see how they could not have, based upon my experience, I would fully support anyone who has fallen victim who might now, for example be on a charge for contempt of court, as a consequence of the provocation.
His concluding comments in so far as they can be recalled were that he’d listened for half an hour to an outburst of political diatribe for which only 5 minutes made any sense. This can only be put down to his inability (or demonstration thereof) to understand the representations which had in any event been submitted as detailed written evidence. The diatribe referred to can only reasonably be put down to a couple of issues raised. A reference to the misconduct of the Justices Clerk for the Humber and South Yorkshire which is considered so serious as to warrant answering charges of misconduct in public office is one. Secondly, a matter which the Claimant relied on was contended as being misleading evidence (additional to the false statement).
As for the ‘political’ reference, it was merely pointed out that the issues were of general public importance as they could detrimentally affect significant numbers and more so since government reforms introduced changes to council tax benefits. These issues were material to the case and did not exceed a brief mention as the judge made it plain that they were not matters worthy of consideration, presumably because they were not favourable to the outcome that had obviously been pre-determined in the interest of the Claimant. Again everything relevant to these points was set out in the written evidence.
His comments were far from the most tactful thing to say to someone, who whilst over the period of time that the judge will have received over half a million pounds of taxpayer's money, has had no remuneration whatsoever for consistently and voluntarily dedicating around 15 hours a day, 7 days a week to matters concerning the wholesale fraud, which it has become obvious is endorsed by people appointed in a judicial capacity.
The judge was acting beyond his authority when again in his belittling manner his interrogation turned to an irrelevant matter concerning the number of payments, in what sum those payments were made and the method chosen for paying council tax instalments. It irked him, so much so, that he enquired if a bank account was held and why payments weren’t made by standing order like everyone else. It wasn’t for the court to lay blame elsewhere for the Claimant exploiting its council tax processing system as a means of defrauding taxpayers.
Unashamed bias was displayed again when the judge referred to previous maladministration, similarly in respect of misallocated payments, for which 27 days was taken by the Claimant to respond and resolve the matter, by which time reminders and a summons were wrongly issued. The facts were distorted out of all recognition and portrayed in the courtroom to be the Defendant’s fault for the Claimant’s gross error. The judge was again noticeably irked to the point that he was motivated to make a spurious statement which was that the Claimant, as a consequence, had a right to demand subsequent year’s liability up-front thus removing the statutory instalment entitlement.
Misuse of Judicial Powers
Not withstanding his reliance on a statement which he knew was false, the judge acted outside his powers by granting the order. The regulations governing council tax liability do not give the court authority to make an order when the defendant has proved that there is no outstanding debt. No discretion in such cases is given to impose a penalty (especially not for one’s own perverse gratification) which is what the judge did in this case by allowing the application and granting costs, based on his own opinion differing from the Defendant’s about how, and in what manner bills are paid.

Neither is the court allowed discretion in the amount of costs it orders. The regulations restrict the level so that no more than the expenditure incurred by the applicant in respect of instituting the complaint is rechargeable to the defendant. The breakdown contained indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the costs claimed were not incurred by the Claimant in respect of instituting the complaint in the Defendant’s case. The judge approved the level from a brief glance of the breakdown. It was then explained to him that the costs itemised referred largely to council resources dealing with enquiries, rescheduling and monitoring payment plans etc. and subsidising bad debt for which none could be attributable to the Defendant’s summons. A detailed analysis in this regard had in any event been submitted in the written evidence.
The order was not made because there was a legal obligation, but for what appeared to be the assistance that imposing a financial penalty might provide in coercing the Defendant into conceding and making payments in line with the Claimant's preferred method.
There was a substantial amount of evidence before the court. Had due process followed and the representations considered objectively it is inconceivable that the judge would have determined the case in the way he did. He seemed to view his role as a disciplinarian rather than someone who was duty bound to deliver a decision based on the legal arguments that were before him.
It is appreciated that a complaint cannot consider the judge's decision (that is now a police matter), but this is not a complaint about that, rather it concerns the failure to carry out his duties in an unbiased way and for that reason unfit to sit on the bench in a court of law and should no longer be allowed to for the sake of future potential victims of the judicial system.

Annex A to C
The misconduct is of such a serious nature that should the concerns raised be misjudged and no action taken as a consequence, the justice system’s reputation will be seriously at stake. That is why material has been included in Annex A to C which demonstrates, for want of a better phrase, that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the Defendant has been stitched-up by what points to a criminal conspiracy between the Claimant and the court.

Annex A
Contained here is an exhibit identified as “NELC12”. In its Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to the letters in that exhibit to justify having ‘no further reason to believe that the costs were being disputed’ because the Defendant had ‘withdrawn his application for the Judicial review of the costs’.
It is not only clear from the content of the Defendant’s letter dated 20 November 2013 that the application to state a case regarding costs had not been withdrawn (only the claim for a mandatory order), but the letter was not a copy of the original. It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Claimant had sourced those letters from a public forum, the same forum which it had sourced the contents of another of its exhibits (NELC11).

Annex B
The letters contained in Annex A had been redacted and matched the entries that were posted on the public forum as seen in Annex B. The forum is the only place from which those letters could be sourced in that redacted form. The characteristics of the letters which the Claimant submitted to the court were identical to the forum posts.

Clearly the Claimant had not sought the original letters and had presumably for convenience consulted the public forum on which all letters connected with the matter (albeit redacted) where conveniently in one place. It is a reasonably assumption that if on this occasion the Claimant consulted the forum to produce its exhibit, it would have done so subsequently where further updates on that forum continued providing evidence that the case stated was still very much being pursued. That would only reinforce the established fact and so does not matter whether the Claimant did or did not continued monitoring the forum, as the crux of the matter is that the post (Annex A) from which the content was sourced was accompanied with some commentary which reinforced the matter in itself. Crucially the commentary ended with this sentence: ‘the next move will be to arrange to appear before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance.’

Annex C
The exhibit (NELC1) is the Defendant’s 2015/16 council tax bill (demand notice) which displays unambiguously at the bottom of the document that an amount of £60.00 is a sum which is subject to Court Proceedings. The same has been included on each of the Defendant’s demand notices ever since the appeal, by way of a case stated, was instituted.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute an appeal of the court’s decision, it is a complaint made in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014 about the judge’s conduct on several counts which are set out in detail above and itemised as follows:

i) Professional Misconduct
ii) Criminal Allegations
iii) Inappropriate Comments / Discrimination
iv) Misuse of Judicial Powers

I confirm that the information I have provided is correct.

Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
Queens Building, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Enquiry Line: 020 7073 4719 Fax: 020 7073 4725
JCIO – Complaint form (09.13)

Yours sincerely,

Stan Higgleston

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended)

Dear PPD - FOI,

Annex A relates to the following

"This is exhibit “NELC12” as referred to in the Application for Liability Order"

There are two letters in this document of relevance, as follows:

First letter

"Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds

Your ref: CO/7281/2013

20 November 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] v GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I'm asked to advise the court whether I will be withdrawing this judicial review claim as it deems there to be no longer a need for further action on the part of the High Court.

Representations have been made upon the draft case though I've neither entered into a recognizance nor since been asked to. The purpose of the judicial review claim was, I believed, to mandate the Justices to state the case without being subject to terms of a recognizance.

I had viewed that agreeing such terms would pose risks, potentially greater than subjecting myself to forfeiture of the proposed sum – if, for example, to avoid a penalty the appeal was prosecuted knowing that the stated case omitted the points in law I was questioning. In terms of successfully appealing the decision I would be disadvantaged from the outset and disproportionately exposed to the financial risks of incurring costs. It could be argued that in these circumstances, requiring recognizance would either be denying my access to justice or unduly burdening me financially, as presently I'm in receipt of no income.

Although the claim prompted service of the draft case, it still remains that delivery of the final signed case has, in accordance with CrimPR Part 64, rule 64.3(7), overrun by approximately two months. Presumably then, the agreement detailed in the acknowledgement of service was only to serve the draft case.

I am therefore in the same position now as I was before the claim for a mandatory order as it seems the Justices will unlikely deliver the signed case unless recognizance is entered into.

However, where my queries with the Magistrates' court went unanswered, the judicial review process succeeded in drawing from the Clerk that if I had appeared before the court to enter into a recognizance, its appropriateness and/or the amount could have been considered. This is exactly the information I was seeking and would never have obtained had I not proceeded with this claim for judicial review.

Knowing as I do now, that a possibility exists to negotiate terms which are mutually acceptable, it seems arranging to appear before the court to enter into a recognizance is now appropriate.

In light of the Justices expressing regard for the Administrative Court's time and public money, it would also seem appropriate, if, whilst appearing before the Magistrates' Court to agree terms of a recognizance, I also seek agreement to terms of an order that the court consider the matter on the papers and that there be no order as to costs, as the case involves a matter of general public importance.

After considering the options that appear available to me now, please take this as formal notice that I am withdrawing this judicial review claim."

Second letter

"HM Courts & Tribunals Service

Administrative Court Office at Leeds
Leeds Combined Court
1 Oxford Row
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 3BG

25 November 2013

Our ref: CO/7281/2013
Your ref:

Dear Sir/Madam

Re The Queen on the application of [.................................................. .......] versus GRIMSBY MAGISTRATES COURT

I am writing to inform you that your letter in the above case was received by this office on 22/11/2013.

Unless you hear from us within four weeks from the date of this letter, you can assume that your letter to withdraw has been accepted and the Court file has been closed.

Please note that all copy documents in the above matter will be destroyed immediately following the closure of the case, unless you have already notified the court that you would like them returned.

If you require any further information, please contact the Administrative Court Office General Office on 0113 306 2578."

Annex B relates to the following:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/show...

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/show...

Annex C relates to the following

"This is exhibit “NELC1” as referred to in the Application for Liability Order"

It is a council tax bill but I can find any other way of presenting the information here. I guess the relevant bit is as follows:

Memorandum Note
Your instalments for 2015/16 do not include your 2014/15 account balance As at 27 Feubrary 2015 your 2014/15 Council Tax account balance is £60
£60 of the total is subject to court proceedings

Yours sincerely,

Stan Higgleston

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

 

Thank you for your further correspondence in relation to Information
Request reference number, NEL/0898/1516

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and
you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will
take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you
of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of
Information requests is available on our website at:
[1]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co...
.

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or
assistance quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

 

Feedback Officer

 

 

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

 

Thank you for your information request reference 0898_1516 and the
subsequent clarification email.

 

Under section 1 of the Act I can confirm that North East Lincolnshire
Council holds the information you have requested.

 

As the information you have requested is about a living individual we are
unable to provide it to you. Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Act 2000
provides an exemption to the disclosure of information which is personal
data of a third party.

 

‘Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt
information if

            (a) It constitutes personal data which do not fall within
subsection (1), and

            (b) Either the first or the second condition below is
satisfied.’

 

The Data Protection Act 1998 defines personal information as 'data which
relates to a living individual who can be identified a) from those data,
or b) from that data and other information which is in the possession of,
or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller'.

 

The information you have requested would therefore be exempt from
disclosure if either of the conditions set out in sections 40 (3) or 40
(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are met. The relevant condition
in this case is at section 40 (3) (a) (i), where disclosure would breach
any of the Data Protection Principles. The Data Protection Principles are
set out in schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I have considered the eight Data Protection Principles and conclude that
disclosure of the third party’s personal information would breach the
first Data Protection Principle, which states that 'Personal data shall be
processed fairly and lawfully’. In concluding that disclosure of the
requested information would contravene the first Data Protection
Principle, I have taken the following factors into account:

 

1. The purpose(s) for which North East Lincolnshire Council obtained and
holds the information requested.

2. The third parties reasonable and legitimate expectations of what should
happen to their personal information.

 

Having considered the information involved and the purposes for which it
was obtained, I am satisfied that it is exempt from disclosure under
section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of section
40 (3) (a) (i). As this is an absolute exemption there is no statutory
requirement to consider the 'Public Interest Test'. The council's decision
is, therefore, to not provide the information you have requested.

 

As I have determined that disclosure of the information would be unfair to
the third party, I have not considered whether any of the other Data
Protection Principles would be breached by the disclosure of the
information requested.

 

If you believe that your request for information has not been handled in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, you have the right to
request an internal review by the Council. Please be clear about which
elements of the Council’s response or handling of the request you are
unhappy with, and would like the Council to address during the internal
review process.  If following this you are still dissatisfied you may
contact the Office of the Information Commissioner. If you wish to request
an internal review, please contact me and I will make the necessary
arrangements.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

Resources Directorate

 

show quoted sections

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended)

Dear PPD - FOI,

Sorry, can you explain that again, but with it mind that the information relating to the exemption has already been provided and therefore the response makes no sense.

Yours sincerely,

Stan Higgleston

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

I am pleased to acknowledge your correspondence and wish to confirm that an Internal Review of the handling of your Information Request NEL/0898/1516 is to take place.

The Internal Review has been passed to the relevant department for processing and you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of Information requests is available on our website at: http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or assistance quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer
[North East Lincolnshire Council request email]

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

Further to your request an Internal Review has taken place into North East
Lincolnshire Council's handling of your information request NEL/0898/1516,
concerning whether North East Lincolnshire Council sent exhibits to the
Magistrates court in respect of the council tax liability hearing which
was held on 30th October 2015.

I have reviewed the response provided to you and the handling of your
request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and find:

o That your request was responded to within the statutory time of 20
working days;
o That you were informed whether or not the information you asked for
was held by North East Lincolnshire Council;
o That you were provided with the reasons why any information you had
asked for could not be supplied to you under the Freedom of
Information Act; and
o That your response provided you with your rights of appeal. 

1.     I am therefore satisfied that the Council has acted in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act in the handling of your request.

 

I have reviewed your request and the exemption of section 40 (2) which was
applied to your request.  Having considered the information available to
me I am satisfied that the exemption has been applied correctly.  Although
certain information relating this this case may have been disclosed in the
public domain via 3rd parties, North East Lincolnshire Council do not
consider it appropriate to comment, release or confirm on any personal
information relating to the court case.

I trust that this Internal Review answers your queries in relation to your
request, and clarifies that your request has been handled in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act. 

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or
the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review
by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Adele Beharrell

North East Lincolnshire Council

 

show quoted sections

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended)

Dear PPD - FOI,

If North East Lincolnshire Council could just answer honestly one question it would be this one:

Why is it all public bodies whether they are local authorities, police forces, care trusts etc., etc., continue the charade and try concealing the truth until the media exposes them, and then they can not apologise enough?

Yours sincerely,

Stan Higgleston

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

 

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for information, which has been
allocated the reference number NEL/1288/1516.

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and
you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will
take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you
of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of
Information requests is available on our website at:

[1]http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council/the-co....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or
assistance quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

 

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Higgleston

 

Thank you for your information request reference NEL/1288/1516. I can
confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council is unable to answer your
query as it is not a request for recorded information.

 

It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000)
gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of
recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public
authorities such as North East Lincolnshire Council. Section 84 of the Act
states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a
Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information.
For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a
policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place.
On occasion, North East Lincolnshire Council receives requests that do not
ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for
example, a policy, opinion or a decision. In this instance I am satisfied
that your request falls outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information
Act as it is not a request for recorded information but is a request for
comment on an opinion you hold.

 

I would also request that you refrain from comments of this nature which
have no real intention to obtain recorded information held by North East
Lincolnshire Council. Your correspondence is intended to raise unfounded
allegations against the Council, with no substance behind your
allegations, or intention to obtain information from North East
Lincolnshire Council.

 

Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act states that a public
authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if that
request is vexatious.

 

North East Lincolnshire Council will therefore not be responding to any
future correspondence of a similar nature.

 

If you disagree with the Council determining your request is vexatious you
have the right to request an internal review by the Council. If following
this you remain dissatisfied you may contact the Office of the Information
Commissioner. If you wish to request an internal review, please contact me
and I will make the necessary arrangements.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

Resources Directorate

 

 

show quoted sections

Stan Higgleston (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Re;

Q. Will NELC confirm whether these exhibits were actually sent to the Magistrates court in respect of the council tax liability hearing which was held on 30 October 2015.

Though NELC has refused to deal with this FOI, citing Data Protection laws, it has been confirmed that the exhibits were in fact sent by the council.