Production of OS mapping by the Land Registry (HMLR) under licence marked crown copyright

fred robinson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Ordnance Survey

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

Waiting for an internal review by Ordnance Survey of their handling of this request.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will to confirm or deny OS maps produced by HMLR under licence become crown copyright from the date they are independently produced by HMLR.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email dated 13 December 2008 regarding information
that you require on the "Production of OS mapping by the Land Registry
(HMLR) under licence marked crown copyright".

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). As your request was received by
us on 13 December we will provide you with a full response within 20
working days as required by the FOIA, meaning by 19 January 2009.

In the meantime, if you have any further questions please contact
Customer Services on: 08456 05 05 05.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson

Request for information: Reference 69930

Thank you for your email dated 15 December 2008 requesting: 'Will to
confirm or deny OS maps produced by HMLR under licence become crown
copyright from the date they are independently produced by HMLR'.

I am pleased to provide you with the attached information with regard to
your request. Whilst Ordnance Survey mapping has Crown copyright applied
to it from its first date of publication, HMLR Title Plans carry a Crown
copyright date which commences on the date of publication of that title
plan.

Having discussed your request with The Land Registry, I am aware that
you have already been provided with information which answers your
request as can be found in their response to you of the 4th December
2008 on the website @Whatdotheyknow.com'
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su....

Consequently this request falls in part within the 'Information
accessible to applicant by other means' exemption under section 21 (2)
(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). We believe this
exemption applies because within part of the above response it is
explained that the document 'Practice Guide 40 - Land Registry Plans'
published by The Land Registry states in Part 2 the issues relating to
Crown copyright between Ordnance Survey and The Land Registry.

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of
Information guidelines. To the extent that Public Interest (section 17)
applies, we have determined that in all the circumstances of the case
that public interest does not apply where the information is already
available elsewhere.

If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
Appeals Officer at:
Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 4GU

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will
ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any
decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending
disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

The problem with the mapping produced by the Land Registry is that it is forged and consists in part of mapping the Survey deny they have drawn or amended, thus I do not see how the Land Registries averments to the Survey of what they have told me, can be relied on or, can constitute an answer by the survey to my FOI request.

The test would be to compare the samples of the forged maps I have sent to both the Registry and yourselves, as well as to the Lord Chancellor - all of which were filed at Liverpool county court - and, by analysis of them, to confirm or deny that those maps are in fact copies of genuine OS maps that exist in your records, or forgeries of them, and, in the light of that determine if, whether they are or not capable of being crown copyrighted.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

I have now been informed that HMLR appears to have historic mapping showing that 19 and 21 Lime Grove were adjoined.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your recent emails dated 16 December and 18 December 2008.

As there is no further request for information from Ordnance Survey in
these statements, we deem that this matter is now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

There appears to be no definition in the Act that your response fits into.

Will you clarify that your opinion that you can simply "close" a FOI request without giving a reason can be done, and specify which section of the Act permits this "closure" and what precisely you mean by "closure".

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Land Registries mapping shows information that does not accord with the Surveys own mapping, as this mapping is obviously produced after and from the Surveys own mapping.

Further, it is stated on the Registries title plan mapping that:

"The title map may be updated from later survey information...under s.113 of the Land Registration Act 1925, this copy is admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original. Produced by HMLR. Further reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of Ordnance Survey. Licence Number GD27228."

It is evident from the above that the Survey plays an active role in sanctioning and policing the mapping produced by its licensees and seemingly agrees that such mapping is in fact crown copyrighted, despite it being known to the Survey to be forged.

As you are also aware, there is other forged mapping that the crown copyright date has been erased from, are you saying that until the date is amended by the Land Registry, the mapping is invalid crown copyrighted Survey mapping.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

ALMOST EVERYTHING I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EXTRACT FROM THE MANY
AUTHORITIES OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO IS ROOTED IN A FALSE
INSURANCE CLAIM REFERENCED W215732 DATED 1993, A CLAIM ALLEGEDLY
MADE BY ME AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT FALSE CLAIM, MANY
"AUTHORITIES" HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN AND BECOME INSTRUMENTAL IN
ASSISTING SEFTON IN THE CONCEALMENT OF, OR THE UPHOLDING OF THIS
INANE UNFOUNDED CLAIM, AND THE OTHER FRAUDULENT CLAIMS THAT FLOWED
FROM IT.

THIS IS INEVITABLY DONE BY "AUTHORITIES" EITHER PROVIDING ME WITH
FALLACIOUS INFORMATION WHICH, WILL NOT, EVEN WHEN THE "AUTHORITIES"
ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE EVIDENCE OF ITS UNTENABILITY ADMIT ITS
FALLACIOUS, AND CENSURE ME FOR ATTEMPTING TO HAVE IT DISCLOSED OR
PASS IT AROUND LIKE THE BAD SMELL IT IS IN THE HOPE IT WILL NOT
COME BACK, OR LIKE THE IC AND SEFTON, ACT AS IF IT IS I WHO AM IN
THE WRONG AND VEXATIOUS FOR DARING TO ASK FOR THE INFORMATION AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH NO CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE BEING GIVEN OR,
BEING TOLD THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVENTHE INFORMATION.

AUTHORISES LIKE THE IC, WHO DENIED ME OF MY RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON
SEFTON'S BEHALF, CULMINATING WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CONTENTION
THAT IT WAS NOT HELD IN A 'RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM' WHEN, SEFTON -
IF NOT THE COMMISSION - KNEW, IT WAS NOT HELD AT ALL AS IT WAS ,
APART FROM A HANDFUL OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994, NONE
EXISTENT.

THE COVERT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO SEFTON BY THE COMMISSION,
ALLOWED SEFTON TO UPHOLD THE FALLACIOUS CONTENTION THAT I MADE AN
INSURANCE CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON IN 1993 TO REMAIN THE PRIME CAUSE OF
WHY MY HOUSE HAS A CHARGE ON IT BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND I OWE
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO SEFTON COUNCIL AND OTHER PARTIES WHO
HAVE AIDED THEM, AGAIN, ALL DUE TO CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993.

IF THE REAL BILL TO THE PUBLIC FOR EVERTHING THAT HAS FLOWED FROM
THAT FALSE CLAIM, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT SALE OF LAND AND TIME WASTED,
WAS ADDED UP. IT MUST BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS BY
NOW WITH NO END IN SIGHT WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

MY PERSONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN CYNICALLY PASSED FROM ONE
AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER FOR YEARS, INCLUDING PASSING BETWEEN THE IC
AND SEFTON MBC TO MY HUGE DISADVANTAGE AND COST.

THE ONLY WEAPON A CITIZEN HAS IS ACCURATE INFORMATION TO DEFEAT
AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE A HORRIBLE EFFECTS ON HIS HIS LIFE.

IT IS THEREFORE A GRIM IRONY THAT THE BODY CHARGED WITH THE
PROVISION OF INFORMATION, SEEKS TO DENY ITS ACCESS ON THE SAME
BASIS AS SEFTON AND THE COURTS - VEXATION.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE VEXATION I HAVE BEEN PUT TO BY THE ACTIVITIES
OF BOTH "AUTHORITIES NONE DISCLOSURE OF MY PERSONAL DATA AT THE
RELEVANT TIME.

I KNOW ITS HARD FOR A PERSON TO CONTEMPLATE DISMISSLE FROM YOUR JOB
AND PERHAPS CRIMINAL CHARGES, BUT THATS NOT MY FAULT AS THAT PERSON
CHOSE TO DO AS HE, OR SHE DID.

NOR SHOULD IT BE SEEN TO BE BY THE CONSTANT DENIAL OF ONE SIMPLE
TRUTH THAT WILL UNDO THE MATTER.

THAT SIMPLE TRUTH LIES AT THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND IS:

HOW COULD I HAVE MADE A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE
EXISTENT BUILDINGS WHEN I LIVED IN A MID TERRACE LOCATION IN LIME
GROVE ?

WHICH LEADS TO, THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE LAND REGISTRY PROVIDING ME
WITH FALSE TITLE PLANS AND SUPPORT THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE
ADJOINED AND THE OS DENYING THEIR OWN MAPPING.

TURNING TO YOUR E-MAIL BELOW FEIGNING IGNORANCE OF THE CONSTANT
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COMMISSION FOR YEARS:

Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 December, however it is
not clear what further information you are seeking. In your email
you ask how we can conclude that a request can be deemed to be
vexatious under the FOIA without knowing the identity of “an
authority.” In your email of 19 December you had asked us to
“please confirm or deny that a first time request, that has never
been asked before and, therefore, never been answered within the
confines of the Act, can be vexatious under any section of the
Act.” This is a general question about the Act itself and not about
the decision of a particular public authority and thus in answering
it we would not need to know the identity of any authority as the
Act applies the same to all public authorities.

TO ANSWER PART OF THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE FOIA AND DPA:

Two of he "authority" were the "IC's" Mr Andrew Damm's who engaged
in correspondence with the other "authority" Sefton Council
regarding two boxes of my data allegedly from 1994 held by Sefton.

Ultimately Sefton used and passed onto Royal & SunAlliance, the
contention - given to them by Mr Damms - that my information from
1994 fell under the 'Durant' ruling as it was not held in a
relevant filing system and consisting of some 700 documents held by
Sefton's Technical Services and Insurance Sections.

The evidence provided by Mr Damns was referred to by myself in
claim W215732 on April 16th 2005 preventing Sefton from using it
with regard to 'Durant' it in the same manner as Royal &
SunAlliance had done in February 2005 to deny me access to my
personal data held by them regarding another fraudulent claim
RR98XN dated January 17th 1994 and, appear to have persuaded two
District Judge's, to strike out my claims against both Sefton and
Royal & SunAlliance on the basis of 'Durant" and deny me access to
my personal information to the font of my January 1994 'claims'.

I HAVE RECENTLY MADE FIRST TIME FOI REQUESTS TO THE IC, AND SEFTON
REGARDING THE TIME WHEN THE PROPER DISCLOSURE TO ME SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MADE REGARDING THEIR "COVERT CORRESPONDENCE" AND MEETINGS THEM
REGARDING MY DPA APPLICATION - ALLEGEDLY REGARDING 700 DOCUMENTS
DATED 1994.

BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE IC NOW RELY ON EACH OTHER NOT TO CONFIRM
OR DENY WHAT IN FACT THEY KNOW AND IT WILL COME TO TRANSPIRE THAT
ANY ACTION SEFTON TAKE IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY FOI REQUESTS, NOT
ONLY WILL, BUT MUST, BE SUPPORTED BY THE IC AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE
PAST AND WHO KNOWS - EVEN NOW THERE MAY BE COVERT INFORMATION
FLOWING BETWEEN THE IC AND THE COUNCIL AGAIN IN PREPARATION.

FOR YOUR FURTHER INFORMATION - SOME CORRESPONDENCE FROM 2003 TO
2005 REGARDING THESE 700 DOCUMENTS NOT HELD IN A "RELATIVE FILING
SYSTEM" AND THE PERNICIOUS EFFECT OF THE CONCEALMENT OF WHAT THE IC
AND SEFTON KNEW, AND COLLUDED ABOUT DURING THAT TIME.

As you see below I am reliant on the information being fed to me by
the being true.

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

I still await a response to my allegations of breaches of the act
which was promised to me by the Councils Legal Director on March
4th 2003. I would point out that there are many letters to and from
the Housing and Environmental Departments missing from my data.
Will you send them? I most especially request a copy of my letter
to the Council dated 17/12/98 and responded to by DSOM/402/98/CG on
22/12/98. RSVP

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

I refer you to past correspondence regarding the assertion by the
Council I am not entitled to data you hold on me. I have been
informed by the information commission today that you are in breach
of the act. I have requested ALL of the information I am entitled
to and this has not been provided. I have also been told my
assertions, you have breached the act, would be addressed, this has
not occurred. I have requested an explanation of this and have
received none. I contend that the information I seek is being
withheld against my right to obtain it with the purpose of avoiding
censure. I formally request you address these matters and inform me
why you believe I am not entitled to the information I have
requested and, to address the matter of breaches of the act.

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

With regard to my recent application under The Data Protection Act,
I formally request that you provide me with ALL copies of my
correspondence with the following Council Departments between the
dates I now provide. I am told by The Information Commission that
you cannot assume I have my own copies. I request copies of my
correspondence with:

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

The Environmental Protection Department (Mr Cannon) between May
2001 and December 2002.

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

Building Control Services (Mr Woods and Mr Edgerton and Mr Heywood
CEO - related to this correspondence) between September and
November 2000 also that to Ms Gillard, Housing Maintenance, Pendle
Drive, Litherland.

I still await a copy of my letter to the Council dated 17/12/98
which was answered by Mr Mc Lennan on December 22nd 1998, ref:
DSMO/402/98/CG.

I look forward to the provision of these copies and a response to
my correspondence with you dated 10/4/03 - 25/5/03 - 15/5/03.

I REMIND YOU THAT THE DATA (MUCH OF IT FALSE) YOU HOLD WITH REGARD
TO MYSELF IS PART OF A 'SET' AND PARTS OF IT CANNOT BE WITHHELD, I
THEREFORE REQUEST ALL OF MY CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994 TO MR BOARDMAN
AND MR BARR BE COPIES TO ME. [6 items]

NB I would also request any 'fax' messages and memos associated
with the above on the basis that these are also part of a 'set' of
data. I also request ALL documents to and from third parties with
regard to the above.

I wish to complain that some documents sent to me already have been
'cropped', this appears to have been done to remove information
from them. The normal copying process does not reduce the size of
the copy paper.

LETTER TO MR HUFF NOVEMBER 1ST 2003: DATA PROTECTION FORMAL REQUEST
FOR DATA

With regard to my letter to you dated June 31st 2003 I request you
send me the data I requested, and am entitled to. BY LAW.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA FROM 1994 I REQUEST THAT YOU SEND ME COPIES
OF MY LETTERS TO SMBC WHICH WERE ACKNOWLEDGED ON FEBRUARY 28TH 1994
BY MRB/HMB/HSG1197AR. AND FROM APRIL 6TH 1994 ACKNOWLEDGED BY
MRB/HSG/1197AR DATED APRIL 15TH 1994.

WITH REGARD TO A CLAIM - I ALLEGEDLY MADE IN 1993 AGAINST SMBC
UNDER POLICY: SEFPPL93 WITH AON CLAIMS MANAGERS - AND WHICH IS ALSO
KNOWN BY THE REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON. I REQUEST COPIES OF ANY
CORRESPONDENCE WITH AON* BETWEEN AUGUST 1993 AND MARCH 1996 WHICH
REFERS TO CLAIM REFERENCE W215732 - ROBINSON.

I also request details of a claim said - by Mr Barr, ref:
GRB/JBJ/HSG1187 and dated 12th January 2000 - to have been "settled
off" in August 1997, which was made by me against SMBC with regard
to my gable wall related to demolition of a "nib wall."

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

LETTER FILED AT COURT IN CLAIM LV360271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC ON
APRIL 15TH 2005

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE
COURT ON OCTOBER 11TH 2004 BY MR GIBSON. THE DATA THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION AFFIRM IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING
SYSTEM IS SOLELY THAT FROM 1994. IT APPEARS THAT THIS DATA HAS
ALLEGEDLY BEEN 'LOST' BY THE COUNCIL IN ANY CASE. THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION CONFIRMS TO ME THAT MY OWN CORRESPONDENCE CANNOT BE
WITHHELD FROM ME - WHICH IS THE CASE REGARDING MY CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE COUNCIL OF 1994. SEFTON HAVE NOT CONFIRMED TO THE COURT
THEY HAVE THIS CORRESPONDENCE FROM 1994.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE ANY ASSESSMENT REGARDING
DATA AFTER 1994. THEIR VIEW, WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBERED
DOCUMENTATION I CLAIMED I HAD NOT HAD, IS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE
PROVIDED IT TO ME IN AN UN-NUMBERED FORM. THIS VIEW IS STATED TO ME
BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 25TH 2003
AND SEEMINGLY CONFIRMED BY MYSELF, AS DURING THE BUILDING OF THE
FILE FOR THE COURT CASE, I STRIPPED ALL THE HUNDRED OF DOCUMENTS
THAT COMPRISE MY OWN FILES, COMPLAINT FILES AND VARIOUS
CORRESPONDENCES, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH I DISCOVERED MANY MORE
COPY DOCUMENTS THAT INDEED I DO HAVE IN NUMBERED, TWICE NUMBERED
WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS, AND UN - NUMBERED FORM. FROM WHAT I NOW
HAVE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRAPOLATE SOME OF THE NUMBERED DOCUMENTS
I DO NOT HAVE.

THE COUNCIL STATE A LIST OF NUMBERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SENT TO THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION. THIS MAY HAVE CONFIRMED THE COMMISSIONERS
VIEW I HAD COPIES OF THEM. THE DOCUMENTS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1993 AND
JANUARY 1995 ARE NOT NUMBERED.

14 UNDISCLOSED TO ME, DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO AUGUST 1993 ARE NUMBERED.

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS LETTER TO ME OF NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, MAY
WELL HAVE BEEN COPIED TO SEFTON MBC AS, ON THAT DATE MR GIBSON
WROTE TO ME STATING THAT, WITH REGARD TO "MY FILE" HE WANTED TO
MEET ME REGARDING LETTERS I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTORS ON NOVEMBER 20TH 2003 - COPIES OF WHICH I
ATTACH.

WITH REGARD TO DATA PROVIDED TO ME BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCES
HOXWORTH,

COUNCIL DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE KEPLER STREET DEVELOPMENT,
WHICH I AM NOT ENTITLED TO UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT EMERGED.
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THIS IS THE DATA THAT THE COUNCIL REFER TO AS
THAT OF 1994.

IN SHORT, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION, IS THAT.

NO DATA REGARDING FALSE CLAIMS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MYSELF ARE
ASSESSED BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION TO BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT.
THIS IS CONFIRMED IN THEIR LETTER TO ME DATED AUGUST 6TH 2002 WHICH
I SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON DECEMBER 17TH 2003 TO PROVE THE COURT
HAD JURISDICTION IN MY CLAIM.

WITH REGARD TO THE DATA SEFTON HOLD IN THEIR CARDBOARD BOXES IT
APPEARS - AS WITH THE DATA FROM 1994 - THAT THIS DATA FORMS NO PART
OF THE DATA SUPPLIED TO ME UNDER THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED
AND NOT NUMBERED.

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE COUNCILS MISLEADING ASSERTION THAT THE
INFORMATION COMMISSION ALLEGEDLY ENDORSED THE VIEW THAT 'NO DATA'
WAS HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - PROVIDED TO THE COURT ON
OCTOBER 11TH 2004 AFTER THE SEFTON AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE CASES
HAD BEEN COMBINED - IS THE 'EVIDENCE' ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE RELIED ON
WITH REGARD TO THE 'DURANT CASE' IN MY CLAIM AGAINST THEM.

CLEARLY THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE WAS NOT, NOR COULD BE, EVIDENCE
RELIED ON IN ANY APPLICATION TO THE COURT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11TH
2004 BY EITHER DEFENDANT.

SEFTON, BY NEVER MAKING AN APPLICATION OR DEFENCE, HAVE NEVER
STATED ANYTHING THEY RELY ON AS EVIDENCE.

I WILL HAND DELIVER A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO SEFTON MBC.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

the OS denies the existence of certain mapping of OS SJ3396 between certain dates, however, the Land Registry and Sefton Council have used copies of OS SJ3396 in the sale of land and which from within those dates and are clearly marked crown copyright, to help you understand why I make this assertion and which mapping I mean, I refer you to the below:

Title MS351603 was registered on August 31st 1994 at the Land
Registry in Birkenhead using OS SJ 3396 dated 1975 and is composed
of five parcels of land taken from land referred to below as parcel
A, B, C, D, E, F and G:

Parcel A

On April 11th 1950, Crosby Council’s Town Planning Sub-Committee
considered a proposal for redevelopment in the Borough.

On January 18th 1956, the Housing Minister wrote to Crosby Council
proposing to approve the Council’s clearance area scheme under Part
III of the Housing Act 1936.

On January 19th 1960, with regard to a letter from Lancashire
County Council referring to the Counties development Plan dated
July 1956. Crosby Borough’s Engineer reported he would bring
forward to the County, any detailed approvals and references and
maps found necessary.

On February 15th 1961, Crosby Council recommended declaring a
clearance area under s.42 of the Housing Act 1957. This
recommendation was subsequently seconded under resolution 1790 and
107 houses then fell under this order.

On August 2nd 1962 the above order was modified with the Minister
of Housing

The application for registration of land under a clearance order
was made on August 10th 1964 and was registered in November 1964
under Title LA51977 using OS SJ 3396 dated 1960.

Between November 1964 and May 1976 nine parcels of land were
purchased on the land shown on OS SJ 3396 dated 1960 and registered
under Title LA45086. This land was subsequently used, when they
inherited this land in 1974, by Sefton MBC to build four blocks of
maisonettes and a tower block of flats.

Sefton MBC’s ownership of the land from 1977 is confirmed by the
fact that delay to Sefton’s builders of the maisonette blocks had
occurred for fifteen months over possession of the land, a delay
for which the builders successfully claimed for, and were paid an
out of court settlement of £5,362 by Sefton MBC in January 1968.

Parcel B

On May 12th 1976, the nine parcels of land registered under Title
LA45086 – that were now recorded on a Land Registry office copy of
OS SJ3396 dated 1969 with the maisonete blocks and tower block of
flats in situ - were removed from that title. The Land Registry on
an office copy edition dated April 14th 1998, record this land to
have been registered to Sefton MBC at the Town Hall, Oriel Road
Bootle under the Title Number MS351603.

Title MS351603 is recorded on the April 14th 1998 office copy to
have been removed from Title LA45086 on September 9th 1998.

Parcel C

On March 7th 1962, Crosby Council made another parcel of land -
recorded on OS SJ 3398 and situated some 40 metres from the land
recorded in 1977 as Title MS351603 - a clearance area. 150 houses
fell under this order.

By mid 1966 demolition was well under way on parcel C and planning
permission was sought to develop the land.

By September 1966 a contract had been negotiated to build three
maisonete blocks on the land in parcel C with the same contractor
who built the four maisonette blocks on parcel B. Subsequently a
tower block of flats was added to parcel C and, an access road to
parcel C from the land in parcel B that had been put up for
registration on August 10th 1964 had been proposed.

Parcel D

The access road mentioned above is recorded on OS SJ 3396 1969. On
September 30th 1967 a small area of private land was bought by
Crosby Council to complete the road in parcel D.

Parcel E

Sometime between September 30th 1967 and May 12th 1976, three
parcels of land were purchased on the land shown on OS SJ 3396
dated 1966 and registered under Title LA45343. This land was
subsequently used by Sefton MBC to build three blocks of
maisonettes and a tower block of flats.

A Land Registry office copy edition dated February 9th 2005 records
that the land under Title LA45343 was registered to Sefton MBC on
May 12th 1976 using OS SJ 3396 dated 1966 and records this land to
have been registered to Sefton MBC at the Town Hall, Lord Street
Southport with a small area of land annexed to it referenced
MS351603.

The above is parcel E.

OS SJ 3396 dated 1966 does not record the three maisonettes block
and a tower block of flats in situ on the land, as, in 1966 they
had not been built. The land recorded as Title MS351603 is thus
land mapped in 1966 and does not, at that time the contain three
maisonette blocks.

Parcel F

On December 24th 1993, Sefton Council transferred land, comprising
3.4 acres of land from titles LA45086 and LA45343, to Maritime
Housing Association. The OS map sent to the inland revenue for
stamping prior to the transfer being submitted to the Land Registry
by Maritime’s solicitors, depicts parcels B, C, D and E as the land
being sold and consisting of three parcels referenced B, C and E
being united by parcel D.

Parcel G

Title MS351603 was registered on August 31st 1994, based on OS SJ
3396 dated 1975 and is recorded on a Land Registry office copy
dated November 11th 2004 as the land depicted on the transfer map
which had been removed from Title LA45086 and LA45343 under Title
MS351603 in 1977 and united by Parcel D and, registered to Maritime
Housing Association on January 21st 1994.

On May 1st 2002, the Council’s CEO wrote to me confirming that on
December 24th 1993 Sefton had transferred their land to Maritime
Housing Association, however, officer’s of the Council have written
to me stating that last day Sefton was responsible for the land was
March 31st 1994 and that it was handed over to Maritime on April
1st 1994, Maritime have written to me stating that the land was not
transferred to then until “mid 1995” and then change their position
and say it was theirs from December 24th 1993.

On September 17th 2002, the Land Registry wrote the following to me
regarding Title MS351603 and, seemingly contradicting the Terrier
Map:

“I have inspected our files…Maritime Housing Association Limited
became proprietors of the above title…registered with the Land
Registry on 21 January 1994. Maritime Housing Association Limited
have been, and remain, registered proprietors since that date.
Regarding the legal obligation of the proprietors to provide
correct information on their ownership. I regret that is beyond the
remit of the Land Registry to comment on such matters. You may wish
to seek legal advice.”

From the above it appears that nobody has a legal obligation to say
who owns land registered by the Land Registry to them when they
sell it, or have good title in the land to sell it in the first
place if they have beeen sold a dud.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your further email dated 22 December 2008 requesting:

* Will you clarify that your opinion that you can simply "close" a FOI
request without giving a reason can be done, and specify which section
of the Act permits this "closure" and what precisely you mean by
"closure"?

* As you are also aware, there is other forged mapping that the crown
copyright date has been erased from, are you saying that until the date
is amended by the Land Registry, the mapping is invalid crown
copyrighted Survey mapping?

We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard
to your request.

With regard to your first question; In order to respond to a request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) a request for
information must be received by the public authority concerned. In this
instance a number of statements were made, but no clear requests for
information were made in these statements. As no requests were made,
the statements do not qualify as requests under section 1 of the FOIA
therefore there is no obligation for Ordnance Survey to respond under
FOIA, hence the closure of the enquiry.

Regarding the second question; Crown copyright in Ordnance Survey
mapping persists for 50 years after the date of publication stated on
any map published by us. Crown copyright continues to exist regardless
what use is made of the mapping within this period. A licence is
required to use Crown copyright mapping within this period. The Land
Registry uses Ordnance Survey mapping under licence from us, under this
licence they may alter or amend the map in line with their statutory
duties. As a crown body, The Land Registry can amend the Crown
copyright date to the date they publish their amendments.

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of
Information guidelines. To the extent that the public interest (section
17) applies, we have determined that in all the circumstances of the
case, the public interest has been met with the full provision of all
information in this instance.

If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
Appeals Officer at:

Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
SOUTHAMPTON
SO16 4GU

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will
ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any
decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending
disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Tony Gray
Freedom Of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

I HAVE SENT THE OS EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE BY RECORDED DELIVERY SHOWING THAT THE LR HAS COMBINED OS MAPPING (SOME OF WHICH THE OS SAYS IS NOT THEIRS), TO PRODUCE A FORGED VERSIONS OF TWO OS MAPS ONTO ONE MAP WHICH, BY THE LAWS OF LOGIC, CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED WITH ONE DATE.

1. BECAUSE THE INFORMATION THAT IS REFERRED TO DOES NOT PERTAIN TO ONE DATE AND THEREFORE, THE LR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LOGICALLY RE-DATE OS MAPPING FROM 1969 AND 1984 ON THE SAME MAP.

2. BECAUSE IN 1969 DETAILS SHOWN ON THE FORGERY DATED 1984 DID NOT EXIST AND, OTHER DETAILS THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE 1969 MAP HAD BEEN REPLACED, I,E A CHURCH BY HOUSING ESTATE,

3. AND ON THE 1984 MAP A SCHOOL SHOWN ON THE REAL 1984 MAP HAD DISAPPEARED AS IT HAD NOT BEEN BUILT IN 1969.

YOU STATE:

"Crown copyright in Ordnance Survey mapping persists for 50 years after the date of publication stated on any map published by us...The Land Registry can amend the Crown copyright date to the date they publish their amendments."

ARE YOU CONFIRMING THAT:

A. WHEN THE DATE IS REMOVED FROM OS MAPPING BY THE OS, THE 50 YEARS OF ITS COPYRIGHT DOES NOT START TO RUN UNTIL A DATE IS AMENDED TO IT, AND THAT FROM WHENEVER THAT IS, IT IS COPYRIGHTED FOR 50 YEARS ?

B. WHEN THE LR DATE AN OS MAP RETROSPECTIVELY, THE 50 YEARS HAS ALREADY STARTED TO RUN PRIOR TO THE MAPPING OCCURRING ?

YOU ALSO SAY:

"The Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey mapping under licence from us, under this licence they may alter or amend the map in line with their statutory duties."

DID YOU DISCUSS WITH THE LR THEIR "STATUTORY DUTIES" TO "FORGE", I.E. "ALTER OR AMEND" MAPPING ?

FURTHER THE OS SAYS THAT SOME OF THE MAPPING USED BY THE LR IS NOT THEIRS THE MAPPING, AND CLEARLY IF THAT IS TRUE, IT CANNOT FALL UNDER A LICENCE IN ANY CASE.

YOUR RESPONSE ON DECEMBER 16TH 2008 STATES:

"Having discussed your request with The Land Registry, I am aware that
you have already been provided with information which answers your
request as can be found in their response to you of the 4th December
2008...falls in part within the 'Information accessible to applicant by other means' exemption under section 21...We believe this exemption applies because...in Part 2 the issues relating to Crown copyright between Ordnance Survey and The Land Registry."

YOU APPEAR TO RELY ON YOUR COVERT "DISCUSSIONS" WITH THE LA TO ALLEGEDLY ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST WHICH WAS:

"Will you confirm or deny OS maps produced by HMLR under licence
become crown copyright from the date they are independently
produced by HMLR."

APART FROM THE ABOVE I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING OVERT REASON WHY YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE LA'S STATEMENTS - IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOUR RESPONSE DATED JANUARY 13TH 2009 - DOES NOT MAKE SENSE OR ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST, YOU SAY:

"The Land Registry may alter or amend the map."

THE LAND REGISTRY STATE ON THEIR WEBSITE:

"Title plans are prepared on the latest Ordnance Survey map available at the time of registration and are not updated as a matter of course."

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORDS " NOT UPDATED", I.E NOT ALTERED OR FORGED, NOTE THE WORD "MAP" NOT "MAPS".

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

REGARDING THE ALTERATION OF OS MAPS USED TO REGISTER LAND BY LICENSEE, I REFER YOU TO THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 BELOW:

124 Improper alteration of the Register

1) A person commits an offence if he dishonestly induces another—

(a) to change the register of title or cautions register, or

(b) to authorise the making of such a change.

(2) A person commits an offence if he intentionally or recklessly makes an unauthorised change in the register of title or cautions register.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section, references to changing the register of title include changing a document referred to in it.

125 Privilege against self-incrimination

(1) The privilege against self-incrimination, so far as relating to offences under this Act, shall not entitle a person to refuse to answer any question or produce any document or thing in any legal proceedings other than criminal proceedings.

(2) No evidence obtained under subsection (1) shall be admissible in any criminal proceedings under this Act against the person from whom it was obtained or that person’s spouse

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

Our Ref: 70147

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your email dated 19 January 2009, requesting an internal
review.

Please note that Ordnance Survey is considering your request for an
internal review. As your request was received by us on 19 January 2009
we will provide you with a full response within 40 working days, meaning
by 16 March 2009.

Thank you for your enquiry

Tony Gray
Freedom of Information Practitioner
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

OK

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Customer Services, Ordnance Survey

1 Attachment

Our Reference: SAP 70147

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 for an
internal review and our response to your enquiry is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Harris
Freedom Of Information Appeals Officer
Customer Service Centre, Ordnance Survey
C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505
Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | [Ordnance Survey request email]
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
email.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Tony Grey

YOUR RESPONSE”

"The Land Registry uses Ordnance survey mapping under licence from us, under this licence they may alter or amend the map in line with their statutory duties, As a crown body The Land Registry can amend the Crown copyright date to the date they publish their amendments . I therefore consider this request closed and will not enter into further correspondence with you.”

APPEARS TO CONDONE THE FORGING OF THE OS MAPPING BY THE LAND REGISTRY AND I REMIND YOU THAT BY REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE I SENT TO THE OS DETAILING THE METHODS OF FORGERY USED BY THE REGISTRY TO PRODUCE THESE 'NEW' CROWN COPYRIGHTED MAPS, THAT THE MAPS PRODUCED DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE MAPS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT AS THEY ARE COMPOSITE MAPS. FIND BELOW A FULLER EXPLANATION FOR MY DISSATISFACTION WITH YOUR RESPONSE AND THE REASON FOR IT:

There are two copies of MAPS between Sefton Council and Maritime Housing Association AND THE LAND REGISTRY REGARDING THEIR DEALINGS WITH LAND.

THE FIRST IS MAPPING PROVIDED TO THE LAND REGISTRY FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND BASED ON FORGED COMPOSITE MAPPING OF OS SJ 3396 DATED 1978 AND 1969, THE SECOND IS FROM WHEN THE LAND WAS REGISTERED ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 USING FORGED COMPOSITE MAPPING OF OS SJ 3396 DATED 1969 AND 1984 PRODUCED BY THE LAND REGISTRY. THIS LAND IS DESCRIBED AS:

a) part of the land comprised in FORGED Title LA45086

b) part of the land comprised in Title LA45343

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

d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated ………1993 made by Michael Scott

This land is the land registered under Title MS351603 on August 31st 1994 comprising of:

a) land at Kepler Street Seaforth registered under FORGED Title MS351603 in March 1977.

b) land at Maple Grove Seaforth registered under Title MS351603 in April 1977.

c) a section of the public highway at Maple Close Seaforth.

d) property in Beaumaris Street Seaforth registered under title MS351603 in April 1977 and shown on the 1966 edition of OS SJ3396.

On November 21st 2007 Mr Williams, a Land Registry lawyer wrote the following to me:

“Land Registry produces a title plan for each title it creates which is based on the Ordnance Survey map…the title plan MS361603…was created in 1994.”

THIS MAP IS DATED CROWN COPYRIGHTED 1975 AND IS A FORGED COMPOSITE OF TWO VERSIONS OF OS SJ3396 DATED 1969 AND 1984. NO SUCH MAP CAN FALL UNDER AN OS LICENCE AS, IN 1975 THE 1984 MAPPING HAD NOT BEEN DRAWN, THEREFORE NO SUCH MAPPING CAN EXISTS WITHIN THE RECORDS OF THE OS TO BE ALTERED UNDER A “STATUTORY DUTY.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear TONY GREY

FOR INFORMATION

A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



1. ON DECEMBER 24TH 1993 MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOUGHT THE
LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE - THE KEPLER STREET SITE - FROM
SEFTON COUNCIL WITH A FORGED MAP WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR
SCREEN WALL.



2. ON MARCH 29TH 1994 SEFTON AND MARITIME INSPECTED THE SITE AND
PROPOSED TO GIVE ME A ONE METRE WIDE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY GABLE
WALL. AT THIS TIME THE NIB WALL WAS IN SITU. THIS PROPOSAL WAS TO
BE AMENDED TO THE SITE PLANS BY MARITIME’S CONTRACTOR’ FAWLEY.



3. PRIOR TO PLANNING PERMISSION FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION - AT THE
WRITTEN REQUEST OF SEFTON, MARITIME'S APPOINTED AGENTS -SUBMITTED
PLAN 417/01 FOR PLANNING PERMISSION USING A SEFTON DRAWING HSG
1187.1A WHICH THEY CONFIRM DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR SCREEN WALL.



MARITIME STATE THE ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND WAS FENCED OFF:



"On the authority of this Association and Sefton Council as our
consultants...clearly as the land was in our ownership we did not
require your permission"



4. A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS FOUND THE NIB WALL WAS DEMOLISHED BETWEEN
MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 1994.



5. SEFTON HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU DATED MARCH 7TH
1994 AND I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU TAKEN AFTER
APRIL 21ST 1994. FAWLEY HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING NO NIB WALL WHICH
THEY SAY WAS TAKEN IN SEPTEMBER 1994.



6. ON JUNE 28TH 1994 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PLANS 417/01 TO 417/17
WERE GRANTED TO MARITIME HOUSING AND FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION. INCLUDED
IN THOSE PLANS WAS THE PROPOSED ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY
GABLE WALL WITHOUT THE NIB WALL, AS VERIFIED BY SEFTONS DRAWING HSG
1187. 1A AND WHICH SEFTON PASSED.



7. ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY REGISTERED THE KEPLER
STREET SITE TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION USING A FORGED OS MAP
THAT SHOWED THE SCREEN WALL IN SITU.



Nobody has said the maps referred to above are not forged.



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless

(a) they are defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



(5) A request or consent under subsection (4) above shall be in
writing



(6) The authority shall within the relevant period from the deposit
of the plans give notice to the person by whom or on whose behalf
they were deposited whether they have been passed or rejected



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



(a) specify any condition subject to which they have been passed,
and


(b) state that the passing of the plans operates as an approval of
them only for the purposes of the requirements of



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



(a) a certificate given by a person approved for the purposes of
this subsection to the effect that the proposed work, if carried
out in accordance with the deposited plans, will comply with such
provisions of the regulations prescribed for the purposes of this
subsection as may be specified in the certificate, and



(b) such evidence as may be prescribed that an approved scheme
applies, or the prescribed insurance cover has been or will be
provided, in relation to the certificate



(10) In any case where a question arises under this section between
a local authority and a person who proposes to carry out any work

(a) whether plans of the proposed work are in conformity with
building regulations, or



(b) whether the local authority are prohibited from rejecting plans
of the proposed work by virtue of subsection

(9) above, that person
may refer the question to the Secretary of State for his
determination; and an application for a reference under this
subsection shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.



(11) Where


(a) deposited plans accompanied by such a certificate and such
evidence as are mentioned in subsection

(9) above are passed by the
local authority, or



(b) notice of the rejection of deposited plans so accompanied is
not given within the relevant period from the deposit of the plans,
the authority may not institute proceedings under section 35 below
for a contravention of building regulations that


(i) arises out of the carrying out of the proposed work in
accordance with the plans, and



(ii) is a contravention of any of the provisions of the regulations
specified in the certificate.



(12) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, “the relevant
period”, in relation to the passing or rejection of plans, means
five weeks or such extended period (expiring not later than two
months from the deposit of the plans) as may before the expiration
of the five weeks be agreed in writing between the person
depositing the plans and the local authority.



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them subject to either
or both of the conditions set out in subsection (3) below.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work have been passed under section
16 above by a local authority, the person by or on whose behalf the
plans were in accordance with building regulations deposited with
the authority may, and in such cases as may be prescribed shall,
for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the authority to any
proposed departure or deviation from the plans as passed, deposit
plans of the departure or deviation.



(2) Section 16 above applies in relation to plans deposited under
subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to the plans
originally deposited.



CLEARLY THE AMENDMENT SHOWN ON PLAN 417/01 WAS NOT REGARDED AS
BEING DEFECTIVE UNDER THE ACT AS IT WAS PASSED.



BY THE TIME THE NIB WALL (SCREEN WALL) WAS FILED ONTO THE TITLE BY
THE LAND REGISTRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 (AND, ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT JUDGE), IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE.



BY SEPTEMBER 1994 IT WAS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO HAVE BEEN
 DEMOLISHED.


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

FOR INFORMATION:

DATE OF CREATION OF TITLE MS351603:

ON MAY 4TH 2007 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR IN LONDON:

Re: Forged Maps Used in the Sale and Registration of Land

With regard to your letter to me dated May 4th 2007 I enclose the following:

1. Letter from yourselves dated September 17th 2002

2. Pre 1974 OS map SJ3396

3. Pre 1974 OS map SJ3396 dated by yourselves as 1984 overlaid onto the real 1984 OS SJ3396

4. Letter from yourselves dated April 9th 2003 making the malicious false statements that 19 and 21 Lime Grove were “originally attached” and that the demolition of maisonettes occurred “some time in the late 90’s”

5. Letter to myself from GTB, Sefton Councils demolition contractors who demolished the above maisonettes

With regard to the above, and other evidence already sent to yourselves the following appears to be the case:

The nib / screen wall did not pass to Maritime Housing Association by transfer on December 24th 1993 [see s.336 (1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990] and [Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989] but, by April 21st had appeared on the ground and was registered by yourselves as such on August 31st 1994, by which time it had been demolished (Sefton Council say) by GTB Demolition Ltd.

The attached OS SJ 3396 dated by yourselves as 1984 is instrumental in both the forged transfer and registration map. Quite why is being concealed from me by yourselves, but appears to aid and abet both Sefton Council and Maritime Housing in crimes.

This letter and enclosures and your letter of May 4th 2007 will be copied to;

The Tonight Program,

The Daily Telegraph Property Section,

John Prescott MP Deputy Prime Minister, and

the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police who will not accept a crime report regarding above the forged maps.

Deputy Prime Ministers copy only

Letter dated September 22nd 1999

This letter only copied to Maritime Housing Association and Sefton Councils Legal Director with a copy of a letter written to Maritime Housings Mr Quayle on September 2nd 1999 based on Maritimes assertion that their contractors were responsible for the demolition of the nib wall when, in 1994, the land was owned by Maritime.

I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT OFFICE COPIES OF TITLE MAPS SHOWING TITLE MS351603 PROVIDED TO ME BY THE REGISTRY AT BIRKENHEAD.

THE FIRST IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45086 IN MARCH 1977.

THE SECOND IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT MAPLE GROVE SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45343 IN APRIL 1977.

THE THIRD IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45086 IN MARCH 1977 AND LAND AT MAPLE GROVE SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45343 IN APRIL 1977 JOINED TOGETHER BY ‘MAPLE CLOSE’ WHICH IS PART OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY.

TWO OF THESE TITLE MAPS ARE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, FORGERIES.

I ALSO HAVE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER FORGED REGISTRY TITLE MAP DATED 1984, WHICH IS NOT FOR TITLE MS351603, AND DOES NOT RELATE TO ME OR TITLE MS351603 BUT, IS IS ALSO BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, ALSO A FORGERY.

THE TEST THAT I, OR ANYBODY WHO CARES TO APPLY, TO PROVE THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS ARE A SIMPLE OBSERVATORY ONE WHICH ENTAILS TAKING THE FORGED MAPPING AND COMPARING IT WITH THE GENUINE MAPPING IT IS FORGED FROM.

THEREAFTER, ANY REASONABLE DECENT PERSON WHO HAS POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE MAPPING AND APPLIED THE ABOVE TEST, COULD NOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT THE REGISTRIES TITLE MAPS ARE NOT PROVEN TO BE FORGED.

THUS FAR NOBODY IN POSSESSION OF THE MAPPING, SUCH AS MR COLLIS OR THE POLICE OR THE LORD CHANCELLOR, OR THE PRIME MINISTER, HAS SAID THAT.

ON FEBRUARY 29TH 2008 THE REGISTRIES LAWYER, MR WILLIAMS, IN RESPONS TO ANOTHER LETTER WRITTEN TO MR COLLIS, ON FEBRUARY 19TH 2008, HEADED, “FORGED LAND REGISTRY TITLE MAP BASED ON OS SJ 3396 DATED 1969” FILED AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT AND, COPIED TO:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY

SEFTON COUNCIL’S CEO MR HEYWOOD

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION:

RESULTED IN THE REGISTRIES MR WILLIAMS WRITING THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I note you allege that there has been forgery of a “Registry title map dated 1984”. Land registry produces title plan for each title it creates which is based on the Ordnance Survey map. It is not clear whether your reference to a “Registry title map dated 1984” is which would have been created by Land Registry or to the Ordnance Survey map detail held by the Land Registry upon which such a title plan would have been based. The title plan for title MS351603…was created in 1994, the year in which the title was first created.”

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 WHICH APPLIES TO ANSWERS GIVEN TO ME UNDER THE FOIA.

s.100 Conduct of business-

(1) Any function of the registrar may be carried out by any member of the land registry who is authorised for the purpose by the registrar.

s.
120 Conclusiveness of filed copies etc

(1)This section applies where—

(a) a disposition relates to land to which a registered estate relates, and

(b) an entry in the register relating to the registered estate refers to a document kept by the registrar which is not an original.

(2) As between the parties to the disposition, the document kept by the registrar is to be taken—

(a) to be correct, and

(b) to contain all the material parts of the original document.

s. 123 Suppression of information

(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of proceedings relating to registration under this Act he suppresses information with the intention of—

(a) concealing a person’s right or claim, or

(b) substantiating a false claim.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

s. 124 Improper alteration of the registers

(1) A person commits an offence if he dishonestly induces another—

(a) to change the register of title or cautions register, or

(b) to authorise the making of such a change.

(2) A person commits an offence if he intentionally or recklessly makes an unauthorised change in the register of title or cautions register.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section, references to changing the register of title include changing a document referred to in it.

I also refer you to the comments from ‘Cross on Evidence” 6th edition 1985 which states:

“WHENEVER IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONES CONDUCT COMPLIES WITH SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARD, AS WHERE NEGLIGENCE IS ALLEGED, EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW HOW OTHERS MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO BEHAVE IN SIMILER CIRCUMSTANCES.”

I ALSO REFER YOU TO THE GHOSH TEST AS PROPOUNDED IN R V GHOSH AS:

This brings us to the heart of the problem. Is ‘dishonestly’ in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 intended to characterise a course of conduct? Or is it intended to describe a state of mind? If the former, then we can well understand that it could be established independently of the knowledge or belief of the accused. But if, as we think, it is the latter, then the knowledge and belief of the accused are at the root of the problem.

“Take for example a man who comes from a country where public transport is free. On his first day here he travels on a bus. He gets off without paying. He never had any intention of paying. His mind is clearly honest; but his conduct, judged objectively by what he has done, is dishonest. It seems to us that in using the word ‘dishonestly’ in the Theft Act 1968, Parliament cannot have intended to catch dishonest conduct in that sense, that is to say conduct to which no moral obloquy could possibly attach. This is sufficiently established by the partial definition in section 2 of the Theft Act itself. All the matters covered by section 2 (1) relate to the belief of the accused. Section 2 (2) relates to his willingness to pay. A man’s belief and his willingness to pay are things which can only be established subjectively. It is difficult to see how a partially subjective definition can be made to work in harness with the test which in all other respects is wholly objective… So far as the present case is concerned, it seems to us that once the jury had rejected the defendant’s account in respect of each count in the indictment (as they plainly did), the finding of dishonesty was inevitable, whichever of the tests of dishonesty was applied. If the judge had asked the jury to determine whether the defendant might have believed that what he did was in accordance with the ordinary man’s idea of honesty, there could have only been one answer - and that is no, once the jury had rejected the defendant’s explanation of what happened.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Customer Services,

YOUR RESPONSE FEBRUARY 6TH 2009:

“The Land Registry uses mapping under licence from us, under this licence they may alter or amend the map in line with their statutory duties.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS INCLUDES FORGERY? BECAUSE IF SO, I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING FROM THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984:

EVIDENCE FROM COMPUTER AND DOCUMENTARY RECORDS

S.68

(1) Subject to section 69 below, a statement in a document shall be admissible in any proceedings as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if--

(a) The document is or forms part of a record compiled by a person acting under a duty from information supplied by a person (whether acting under a duty or not) who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in that information; and

(b) any condition relating to the person who supplied the information which is specified in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are--

(a) that the person who supplied the information--

(i) is dead, or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit to attend as a witness; 


(ii) is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; or

(iii) cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he supplied or acquired the information and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in that information;

(b) that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the person who supplied the information but that he cannot be identified; and


(c) that, the identity of the person who supplied the information being known all reasonable steps have been taken to find him, but that he cannot be found

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence that would be admissible apart from this section

s. 69.

(1) In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown--

(a) that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;

(b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(c) that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied

(2) Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at such times as may be so required

s. 74:--

(3) In any proceedings where evidence is admissible of the fact that the accused has committed an offence, in so far as that evidence is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings for a reason other than a tendency to show in the accused a disposition to commit the kind of offence with which he is charged, if the accused is proved to have been convicted of the offence … he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice . . .

(a) the admissibility in evidence of any conviction which would be admissible apart from this section; or

(b) the operation of any enactment whereby a conviction or a finding of fact in any proceedings is for the purposes of any other proceedings made conclusive evidence of any fact

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence

Schedule 3 Part I

1. Section 68 (1) above applies whether the information contained in the document was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied was acting under a duty; and applies also where the person compiling the record is himself the person by whom the information is supplied.

6. Any reference in section 68 above or this Part of this Schedule to a person acting under a duty includes a reference to a person acting in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation in which he is engaged or employed or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office held by him.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear tony Harris

I REFER YOU TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULY 5TH 2006 AND JULY 12TH 2007.

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I WROTE AND FILED AT COURT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENTITLED “REPORT OF FALSIFIED LAND RECORDS.” DETAILING WITH COPIES, HOW THE MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AS KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, HAD BEEN CONVEYED AND REGISTERED USING FORGED MAPPING.

ON JULY 11TH 2006 THE COURT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“District Judge Fitzgerald has asked me to write to you and acknowledge receipt of the document that you filed on 5th July 2006, i.e. Report of Falsified Land Records and a letter from the Information Commission dated 25th November 2003.”

SHAYNE BROWN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED MY REPORT ON JULY 12TH 2006 STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the Report of Falsified Records…the Department for Communities and Local Government has considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have responsibility for the issue raised. However, we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

ON JULY 17TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED ON MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND SEFTON COUNCIL A “CRIME REPORT” TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED TO REGISTER THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, AND COPIED IT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, MR PRESCOTT FOR FORWARDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL AFFAIRS.

ON JULY 24TH 2006, MS FOX, THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO LAWYERS FROM LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its remit.”

ON JULY 27TH I WROTE TO SHAYNE BROWN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENDING HIM MORE EVIDENCE.

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006, MRS WEAVER FROM THE LAND REGISTRIES COVENTRY OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY “LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER” STATING:

“My understanding from your letter…is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that the Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some background…may prove useful. The boundary that you are querying is between your property, number 19, and what was formally number 21 Lime Grove. Number 21 was purchased by The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby on 2 September 1960…the application for registration of the Council was lodged on 10 August 1964…it was included in title LA45086. It was included in that title from that time until it was sold again…to Maritime Housing Association on 24th December 1993. At that time it was removed from title LA45086 and registered under title MS351603.”

THIS STATEMENT NEGATES THE TWO FILED PLANS OF TWO TITLES FILED AS MS351603 THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM TITLES LA45086 AND LA45343 IN MARCH AND APRIL 1977.

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 I FILED AT COURT THE FORGED MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD AT KEPLER STREET AND COPIED TO:

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

“The party boundary structure ‘the nib wall’ was, was according to you demolished between March and September 1994, from the above, how do you determine this.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006, MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I can confirm that the Council will not have provided any information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance Survey plan referred to, nor any other Ordnance Survey plan.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to this Department about structural defects regarding your property. I am sorry to read about the problems you are currently experiencing and appreciate this must be a difficult situation for you. Unfortunately, this Department cannot get involved in individual cases or questions of possible court decisions. I would suggest that you continue to seek legal advice.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Council is unable to confirm any detail in relation to the party boundary structure “the nib” as requested…Mr George Barr, the property manager referred to in Maritime Housing Association Limited’s letter of March 4th 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable to take this matter any further.”

ON AUGUST 21st 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your property. This has been passed to this Department because of our responsibility for housing…this Department has no power to intervene in private property disputes of this nature…planning functions, such as formulating development plan policies, determining planning applications and enforcing planning control are best carried out by the democratically elected district and, in certain cases, county councils…if you are unhappy with the conduct of the local authority, you may wish to complain via their own complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied…you might wish to take your case to the Local government Ombudsman can investigate whether there has been maladministration.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006. MR IAN FLOWERS OF THE LAND REGISTRIES LONDON OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your copy letter of 17 July to this office. However, I regret that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Registry. I will send a copy of this letter to the DCA for their reference.”

ON AUGUST 30th 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your further letter of 25 August with enclosures about maps affecting your property…this Department cannot get involved with private property disputes. I would suggest that you seek legal advice in order to resolve this matter.”

ON AUGUST 31ST 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, SENT ME A TERRIER MAP, REFERENCE LA076317 2005, PREPARED BY THE COUNCILS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING LAND, DONATED TO ME IN APRIL 1994 BY MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, (BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FENCED OFF ALONG MY GABLE WALL AFTER THE PLANNING APPLICATION STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT – ON THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION OF THE COUNCIL) WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TERRIER MAP:

“I thank you for your letter 31st August 2006 in which you sought information regarding a 1 metre strip of land. I am enclosing a plan from which you can clearly be seen the area in which you are interested.”

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 MR WILLIAMS, SEFTONS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 21st August 2006 and would advise that I will not enter into any further correspondence in the matters raised in this letter.”

ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2006 I WROTE, AND FILED AND SERVED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO MS ELWOOD FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE COUNCIL’S POWERS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF MARITIMES LAND IN 1994, AND COPIED IT TO:

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN A FOURTEEN PAGE VERY DETAILED LETTER TO MR POWEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET STATING, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING FACT REGARDING THE TITLES OF THE LAND:

False Land Records

“With regard to your letter dated September 12th 2006 and the transcripts of telephone conversations with The Land Registry in Birkenhead (The Registry) which I presume you have received by recorded delivery.

As of today I do not know who owned the land registered at Kepler Street and Maple Grove Seaforth (the land MS351603) between December 24th 1993 and August 31st 1994, nor evidently do Sefton MBC (Sefton) or Maritime Housing Association (Maritime). I present the following conflicting fact which I have been given and compare them with the actual facts of the matter. I give letter references in square brackets, and where appropriate print in bold what I consider to be pertinent points. While the purpose of this letter is to highlight the matter of land ownership, it cannot be done without reference to the demolition of the party boundary structure or the supposed insurance claims made by myself. I will keep these to a minimum. What follows is only a small percentage of the events begun in 1977 or earlier.

The Information

Maritime are averred to have become the "owners" of 'the land MS351603' on December 24th 1994 by Maritime, Sefton and The Registry, Fawley Construction. On October 19th 2005 District Judge Bellamy made the following statement regarding the 'land MS352603'.

"On 6th September 2000 Mr Robinson, by virtue of a Land Registry search ascertained the Maritime Housing Association were the registered proprietors of the above land from January 1994."

The ownership by Maritime is stated by The Registry to have been triggered by the transfer document dated December 24th 1994 but, the title number MS351603 is not recorded on that document, instead, a title number is said to be awaiting designation. The title numbers of LA45343 and LA45086 are used to identify 'the land' that is sold to Maritime by Sefton…

The Titles

Title LA45086 was filed in March 1977 using OS SJ3396 dated 1969.

Title LA45343 was filed in April 1977 using section B of OS SJ3396 dated 1966. Section A of this map would show the land as it was prior to the demolition of the area of land comprising; Peach Grove, Birch Street, Alder Street, Vine Grove, Vine Street, Plum Street, Date Street and Kepler Street circa 1966.

On January 21st 1994, by virtue of the transfer documents The Registry aver that Maritime, the owners of the land from December 24th 1993, became the "registered proprietors" of the land 'greened out', i.e. outlined in green and, stated by The Registry to have been carried out on January 21st 1994 from the filed title plans of titles LA45343 and LA45086.

Title LA45086

On February 3 2006 I obtained the Property Register from The Registry. At 1 of this document it is recorded that 'the land' inter alia is:

"The freehold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above title...being...Lime Grove 1 to 27 (odd numbers) "

Numbers 1 to 27 Lime Grove are shown on OS SJ3396 dated 1966 and comprise of the terrace 1 to 19 Lime Grove, a large detached house numbered 21 Lime Grove and a further three house terrace numbered 23 to 27 Lime Grove.

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

"The land edged in green on the filed plan has been removed from this title and registered under the title number or numbers shown in green on the said plan."

This 'greening out by The Registry is recorded on Section B of OS SJ3396 dated March 1975 and the new title number is recorded as MS351603 [edged in red on the title plan] which pre dates the filed plan of March 1977 and clearly uses a different version of OS SJ3396 than the 1966 version. The registered proprietors are recorded as Sefton MBC at The Town Hall, Orial Road Bootle on May 12th 1976.

Fact

By September 25th 1992 two separate parcels of land were registered as owned by Sefton under the same 'unique' title number MS351603 - from different versions of OS SJ3396 - at two separate Council locations. These being those 'greened out' of OS SJ3396 dated 1966, and OS SJ3396 dated 1967, and both filed and recorded under the same title number on May 12th 1976.

Registration of MS351603

On February 4th 2003, The Registry sent me a filed plan of MS351603 dated August 31st 1994. This plan comprises of; the amalgamated title plans of LA45343 dated May 12 1976 and; the amalgamated title plans of LA45086 dated May 12 1976 as recorded above.

It appears that Maritime may not have filed the August 31st 1994 registration - another fact withheld from me by The Registry - and did in fact have the completed site registered to them in 'mid 1995'. The Registry refuse to disclose any detail about this registration.

I look forward to a constructive response from you, or better, someone with more authority, i.e. The Deputy Prime Minister.

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2006 THE ASSISTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ROSEMARY AGNEW WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/07976/RA/DH:

“The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your complaint against Sefton Council and write to you…after checking with the Council it appears that your complaint has not yet been dealt with through the Council’s complaint procedure. So: I will send a copy of your complaint to the Council and ask the Chief Executive to put it through the Council’s own complaint procedure, to keep you informed of the progress, and to let you know the outcome.”

ON OCTOBER 3RD 2006, LYNN ROWLAND FROM THE REGISTRY IN BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE, SEAFORTH:

“In order for us to deal with your query, could you please provide us with the reference on the letter sent to you by the Coventry Land Registry. This will enable us to call up any previous correspondence.”

ON OCTOBER 12TH 2006 MR GIBSON, SEFTON’S PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASSISTANT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “REFUSAL NOTICE (VEXATIOUS REPEATED REQUESTS).”: [CAPITALISATION ADDED)

“Further to your numerous letters regarding YOUR NIB WALL and the title to your property AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. I write to inform you that your request for information will not be processed. I have decided that your request is vexatious and repeated requests have been responded to over the years…the reason I have concluded your request is vexatious and that repeated requests have been received and responded to is that the council has spent hundreds of man hours dealing with your requests REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY 17 LIME GROVE, and the INSURANCE CLAIM WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS NOT MADE.”

ON OCTOBER 17TH 2006, SALLY WALKER, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE O6/100048/SPC/sw:

“Please note you complaint has been allocated the above new reference number…we have at the moment more complaints than we can give our investigators but will allocate your complaint as soon as we can…we will contact you again when your complaint has been allocated…please note we may copy to the council any papers you have sent us about your complaint. This is to inform the Council that your complaint has been brought to our attention

ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS, CASEWORKER AND ADVICE OFFICER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME, REGARDING MY LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL DATED JULY 5TH 2006, USING THE RFERENCE END0124895 STATING: (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“Your letter refers to a request for assessment (REFERENCE: 03-36599/06/AD) THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHICH FOCUSED ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BY SEFTON MBC. WE WERE UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT AS WE CONCLUDED THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION DID NOT FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. WE REACHED THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU DID NOT FORM PART OF A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO PROVIDED FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT HELD UNDER A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. I can only repeat the Information that MR DAMMS, the caseworker who completed the assessment, provided to you. During the course of our investigations, SEFTON MBC CONFIRMED THAT THE ‘MISSING DOCUMENTATION (THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCCESS REQUEST) WAS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM…we can only confirm that it is OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ‘MISSING’ DOCUMENTS WERE NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM.”

ON OCTOBER 23RD 2006 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME HEADED “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE.:

“It is my role on behalf of the Chief Superintendent…to conduct investigations into such matters…I would be grateful if you would contact me…in order to arrange a suitable appointment to discuss the matter in detail,”

ON OCTOBER 24TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHICH “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE” THEY REFERRED TO.

ON OCTOBER 25TH 2006, PATRICK BROUGH, THE LAND REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“We have on file a full copy of the comprehensive letter written to you on 4 August by Mrs D M Weaver, the Land Registry at our Coventry office. As Mrs Weaver made clear in the final paragraph of that letter, it contained Land Registries definitive response on the issues you had raised in respect of titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603. I do not therefore propose to enter into any further correspondence regarding the matter. It would NOT in any event be appropriate for the Land Registry to comment on QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ASKED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WHICH, THEY HAVE, FOR REASONS STATED IN THEIR RECENT LETTER TO YOU, REFUSED TO ANSWER.”

ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“I refer to your letter of 30 October…the Information Commission’s Office conducted an assessment in respect of Sefton Council following a complaint that you submitted to us in 2003. However, in the course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of your personal data. We based our of our assessment on the correspondence that both you and Sefton provided to us in the course of our investigation. However, Sefton Council never provided us with any of the documents that you had requested from them…you have enclosed a print out of your council tax account with your letter. You have asked us to confirm whether this document will not be personal data…because it is not part of a relevant filing system…it appears that the council holds your council tax records on computer. For the purpose of the DPA this information is likely to be your personal data and as such you have a right of access to this data…if the Council held a paper copy of this information at the time of your request, and this document was not held in a relevant filing system, you would not have been entitled to a copy of this information under the DPA.”

ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM MERSEYSIDE POLICE under the reference TK/ih/6VDDW ACKNOWLEDGEING MY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 9TH 2006:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent XXXX, Area Commander for Sefton…Constable xxxx will reply to you directly.”

ON NOVEMBER 9TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.” IN ANSWER TO MY LETTTER OF NOVEMBER 6TH 2006 COPIED TO (CAPITALIATION ADDED):

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

“ The advice that we provided to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council following the assessment we conducted IN 2004 regarding the COMPLAINT that you submitted to our office about Sefton Council. The outcome of OUR ASSESSMENT was explained to you when we concluded our investigation…I can confirm that the Freedom of Information Act does not provided an individual with the right to have INACCURATE DATA amended…I can confirm that we have now closed this case and that the large volume of correspondence that you have enclosed with your last letter will be HELD ON FILE for information only…we will be in touch with you shortly regarding the subject access request that you made to this office on 21 October 2006.”

ON NOVEMBER 16th 2006, FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORK AND ADVICE MANAGER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE FOII/486SAR/310.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You first of all asked us for copies of all the correspondence and, if any, faxes emails and telephone conversations regarding [your] REQUESTS to the Commission…given that your letter of 21 October 2006 was only concerned with…case reference 03/36599/06…we have supplied you with the communications WE EXCHANGED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL in relation to 03/36599/06.”

03/36599/06 WAS A “REQUEST” REGARDING THE INFORMATION WITHHELD BY SEFTON COUNCIL DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST 1994 WHICH, HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER DATA OF FORGED MAPPING.

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I RECEIVED TWO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN DATED NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, THE FIRST REFERENCED 06/C/10048.SPC3: THE SECOND REFERENCED 06/C/10048/RA.

ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you are in dispute with the council over whether you owe, or have ever owed, council tax payments…it is not the role of the Information Commissioners Office to assess whether or not an individual is liable for council tax payments and we have neither the resources or expertise to do so…the amount of money that you owe in council taxes has been considered by the Magistrates Court and you have been issued with two liability orders. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be unable to overturn a decision that has been made by the courts…you have indicated that you have made a subject access request to access your computer records, but that you have ‘been unable to obtain them’…you could consider a complaint if you felt the council had not responded to your request in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. However, you would need to provide us with a copy of your request letter …and any other correspondence from the council relating to your request…it would appear that the Local Government Ombudsman is better placed to consider your complaint about whether the council has correctly assessed your council tax liability.”

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I SENT MS HOWKINS THE INFORMATION SHE HAD REQUESTED AND COPIED IT TO:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you have pursued the matter through the courts…before we can take any action in respect of your complaint to this office we need you to provide us with details of the courts response to your claim against the council…we would be grateful if you could provide details of the outcome of your court case, including copies of any correspondence that you have received from the court in respect of this matter. Once we have received this additional information from you we will consider how best to progress your complaint.”

ON DECEMBER 4TH 2006 I WROTE AGAIN TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENCLOSING 22 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FALSE LAND RECORDS AND FORGED MAPPING AND COPIER TO:

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

ON DECEMBER 5TH 2006, TED POWELL, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter to John Prescott MP to which I am replying on his behalf…the matters you have raised are the responsibility of the Department of Communities and Local Government. I have therefore passed your correspondence to that Department so that your concerns may be addressed in more detail.”

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2006 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ACKNOWLEDGED MY CORRESPONCE UNDER 06/C/10048/SPC3.

ON DECEMBER 14TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO LORD FALCONER, ENCLOSING SEVENTY FOUR PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND COPIED TO:

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

“The court and the Government appear not to be able to deal with the deceit which over the years have escalated to the present state, absorbing tens of thousands of pounds of public money, and occurred seemingly centered on the unlawful sale of land by Sefton Council to Maritime housing Association in 1993/4. It is quite clear that some parties in this matter should be sent to prison rather than the threat of prison, loss of my home and massive unfounded costs and fallacious liability orders for Council Tax, obtained by perjury, being used against myself in full view of the authorities…the matter now needs to go to the Court of Human Rights as a matter of great urgency and not be passed around like a bad smell. Please note it is the duty of senior members of the Government to keep the courts independent and not let them become subverted from within, or from without.”

ON 13TH DECEMBER MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REFERENCED Misc AND HEADED “COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE”:

“I refer to the above matter in relation to your on-going issues and various correspondences…I have reviewed the matter once again and would refer you to the letter sent to you by D/I xxxv.”

THE ENCLOSED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2005 HEADED “LETTERS OF COMPLAINT” STATED:

“I have indicated on several occasions there are no criminal offences committed by any party against you or your property in relation to your claim for damages. This is a civil matter between yourself and other parties. The allegation of perjury against members of staff of Sefton Council was investigated and there were no offences committed. As indicated by Superintendent xxxx in his letter to you we are not prepared to communicate with you any further. You should refer all of your future correspondence to those parties you hold responsible for damage.”

ON DECEMBER 19TH 2006, NATALIE JADE HOLE, CUSTOMER LIASON UNIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 7 December addressed to the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP regarding false land records. The Department of Local Government does not have responsibility for the issue you have raised. Your letter has therefore been sent to the Department for Constitutional affairs.”

ON December 21st 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2006 in response to my request of 29 November 2006…you are seeking access to your council tax records …we will only consider whether or not the council responded to your subject access request of 15 November 2005 in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998…I have therefore written to the council to ask it to confirm whether it has provided you with the information that you requested. If the council has not provided you with this data, I have asked it to confirm whether it will now do so, if the council does not intend to provide you with the information that you have requested, I have asked it to clarify the exemption within the Act upon which it is relying to withhold this data.”

ON JANUARY 10TH 2007, MR DANNY O’ SULLIVAN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

“Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2006 addressed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will send you a reply by 30 January 2007…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007 I WROTE TO THE HOME SECRETARY, JOHN REID REGARDING THE REFUSAL OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF FORGED TITLE MAPS BY THE LAND REGISTRY.

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 IN RESPONSE TO “COPY LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS” SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY:

“An inspection of our system indicates that 19 Lime Grove is not registered therefore we would not have any documents relating to the property on our files.”

ME ON JANUARY 15TH 2007 WITH REGARD TO FURTHER COPY CORRESPONDENCE AND A ‘FEEDBACK FORM’ MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO UNDER REFERENCE YV000098:

“Your letter will be forwarded to the Area Commander at Sefton for his attention. You should receive a response within 21 days.”

ON JANUARY 17TH 2007, JEREMY DONALDSON, HEAD OF THE LAND REGISTRY AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JANUARY 12TH TO MS DOWKIN IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER MS361603 LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH” UNDER REFERENCE ACRT/700/06/118/JRD”

“I refer you to the letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mrs Weaver…I have nothing to add to what Mrs Weaver said.”

ON JANUARY 26TH 2007 KERRRY LOCK, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ON BEHALF OF JOHN REID UNDER REFERENCE T1944/7:

“Thank you for your letter…regarding your wish to formally report a crime to the police…the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Secretary…Ministers do not have the authority to intervene in operational matters. If you wish to make a complaint…contact their Professional Standards department…alternatively you can make your complaint through the Merseyside Police Authority…or the …ipcc.”

ON JANUARY 29TH 2007, DINESH BHATT,FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED CSU/20492:

“We are the third tier in Her Majesty’s Court Service…we investigate complaints concerning the administration of HMCS. We cannot investigate complaints concerning judicial fraud…I note that you have already reported the matter of fraud to Merseyside Police.”

ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 83360:

“The issue raised is outside of the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the HM Land Registry, so that they can consider its contents.”

ON FEBRUARY1ST 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.:

“We have now received a response from the council’s Data Protection Officer. He states that the Revenue Manager has indicated that your request was answered at the time…the Revenue Manager has also stated that the council hold hard copies of the documents if required and, in view of this…I shall ask for them to be copied to you again.”

ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 I WROTE TO THE CHIEF CONSABLE OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH AND COPIED TO:

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON FEBRUARY 6TH 2007 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED SI/lh6VDDW THANKING ME FOR MY “COMPLAINT” OF FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 AND STATING:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent xxxx, Area Commander for the Sefton area, as he is the officer who has been dealing with your investigation.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is no evidence that the Council have concealed records.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MRS S HACKNEY, SECRETARY, WROTE TO ME FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE UNDER THE REFERENCE 006/C/10048/CSO/SH STATING:

“Your complaint has now been allocated to Mr Oxley.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I RECALL that you submitted a complaint about the issue of YOUR NIB WALL to the Ombudsman IN 1995…I have considered what you have submitted with your current complaint and it is my view that this concerns basically THE SAME ISSUE…I understand that the Police…are no longer prepared to communicate further with you on this matter…I can see no benefit in investigating your complaint [because] this is a PRIVATE MATTER and not one of public administration.”

ON FEBRUARY 27TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER REFERENCE 0375/02/07 REGARDING A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

“The contents of your letter concerning Maritime Housing Association have been noted…if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON FEBRUARY 28TH 2007, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME in answer to a letter to her dated February 28th 2007 UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is nothing further that I can add to my previous comments.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING MY ALLEGED COMPLAINT DATED 1995, AND THE LIABILITY ORDERS OBTAINED BY SEFTON FOR NONE EXISTENT COUNCIL TAX LIABILITIES, STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You have asked in your latest letter for RECORD OF YOUR COMPLAINT which you say was not made at that time because the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall was not at that time established…there are NO RECORDS of the decision on your compliant…are RECORDS of the complaint numbers your complaints…these are 95/C/04896…I DO RECALL the complaint about the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall…I informed you that YOU had made complaint on this subject AT THAT TIME…writing to you. There was no decision on the OWNERSHIP of THE WALL as that was NOT RELEVANT, what WAS relevant was that this was A PRIVATE MATTER between you and the Council OR the housing association…I note that you complained that the council officers COMMITTED PERJURY…and that you complained about this CRIMINAL OFFENCE to Merseyside Police. You also challenged the competency of the Magistrates Court and APPEALED TO THE CROWN COURT which was unable to help you…I am sending a copy of this letter and the letter of February 19th to the Council’s Chief Executive.”

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

ON MARCH 13TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING TITLE MS 351603 UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, HEAD REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY ON MARCH 8TH 2007. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ON THE FIRST POINT I can confirn that the Land Registry was supplied with the August 1994 version of Ordnance Survey map OS SJ3396NW which CORRESPONDED with title MS351603 – 21 Lime Grove…on the second point…if you want a response…please contact the appropriate land registry office which deals with your area.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MS ANNE SEEEKS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING A LETTER DATED MARCH 16TH 2007:

“I have asked Mr Corney, an Assistant Ombudsman to review the file on your complaint on my behalf. Mr Corney does not manage Mr Oxley and has not previously been involved with your complaint. He will complete the review and write to you as quickly as possible. His decision will be final.”

ON MARCH 22ND I WROTE A COMPLAINT TO MS SEEKS REGARDING MR OXLEY HEADED “MALICIOUS MIS-STATEMENT – BREACH OF DUTY”, POINTING OUT TO HER THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE OMBUDSMAN IN 1995 REFERENCED 95/C/03824.”

ON MARCH 22ND 2007, MR CORNEY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/10048/RJC/jm. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ I have read the PAPERS and see nothing to suggest that the decision was wrong, the only point I would accept is that complaint 95/c/03824 WAS NOT MADE IN 1995, as it was IN FACT received in this office on 10 January 1996…Mr Oxley is also quite correct…about the LIABILITY ORDER for NONE payment of Council Tax…there is no way in which the Ombudsman can overturn the decision of a Magistrates Court, which has been REINFORCED IN TURN BY THE CROWN COURT. ”

ON MARCH 26TH 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 154306:

“Thank you for your letter dated 16/3/07 addressed to Lord Falconer…the issue raised is outside the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the DCLG.”

ON MARCH 27TH 2007, MR PATRICK BROUGH THE REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, WITH REGARD TO A LETTER AND DOCUMENTS DATED MARCH 20TH 2007, UNDER THE REFERENCE CL145/03. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I have nothing to add to the COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION which Mrs Weaver gave you except to say…title MS351603 was FIRST registered on 21 January 1994 and not on 25 September as YOU SUGGEST.”

ON MAY 4TH 2007, KELLY TOMLIN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

““Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2007 addressed to Lord Falconer…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”

On May 8TH 2007, ANNE SEEKS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, REGARDING A LETTER DATED APRIL 23RD 2007, UNDER REFERENCE 06/10048/AS/CRB and changing the date for the 1995, 1996 complaint C/04896 to 1999:

“Both Mr Oxley and Mr Corney have explained why your complaint will not be investigated. Their decisions are correct…I have to tell you that the file relating to complaint 99/C/04896 was destroyed some time ago and I cannot therefore comply with your request.”

ON MAY 14TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN FROM THE JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING EVIDENCE I HAD SENT TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OVER THE “LAST MONTHS” REFERENCED 0160/05/07. CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“The contents of those letters concerning damage to YOUR WALL have been noted……if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON MAY 18TH 2007 PAULA MULLIN OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED ”CLAIM NUMBERS 5LV53314 & 6L50690 UNDER REFERENCE CSU21318 AND, REGARDING “LETTERS OF 14 APRIL, ADDRESSED TO LORD FALCONER. LORD GOLDSMITH & LORD PHILLIPS WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED TO HMCS BECAUSE:

“This office is responsible for dealing with all correspondence in relation to the administration within the courts in England and Wales.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, KAREN ROUSE, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER OF MAY 31ST 2007:

“The matters raised in your letter are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Your letter has therefore been transferred to the new Ministry of Justice.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, SARAH MASTERSON, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE T16299/7 REGARDING “YOUR POLICE COMPLAINT.”:

“I can see from your letter that you have raised a complaint with the Chief Constable and the…IPCC and are not satisfied with the response you have received…the IPCC is an independent body and therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you will need to seek independent legal advice.”

ON JUNE 12TH 2007 I WROTE A ‘ROUND ROBIN’ LETTER REGARDING THE FALLACIOIUS INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732 AKA RR98XN AKA AT01939, TO:

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON JUNE 26TH 2007, HIESH DARJEE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED 070626/J24 – 54/018673/07”

“Thank you for your letter concerning council tax. As the issues you have raised is the responsibility of this Department…I have been asked to reply…I am afraid that the administration and collection of council tax is the responsibility of the local authority and it would not be appropriate for ministers or officials from this Department to intervene in individual cases between a local authority and its taxpayers.”

On June 27th 2007, BERNARD McNALLY FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166270:

“Thank you for your “round robin letter” regarding Sefton Borough council. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”

ON JUNE 28TH 2007, H JARMAN FROM THE CASE RECEPTION UNIT OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166461:

“Thank you for your correspondence received at this office on 14th June 2007 regarding your information request to Sefton MBC. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”

ON JULY 9TH 2009 LANDSEARCH LIMITED EMAILED ME CONFIRMING THEIR CONTRACT WITH ME TO SUPPLY ME WITH TITLES LA 45086, LA 45343 AND TITLE MS351603.

JUST OVER A YEAR SINCE MY LETTER TO JOHN PRESCOTT REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING, MARY ROSE MULLINER,LAWYER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY, TELFORD, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER LA45086.”:

“The point made by you in your letter of 13 June 2007 as to the erasure of the Crown copyright date. The 1977 title plan for LA43086 is based on more than one edition of the Ordnance Survey. The first sheet within which former LA45086 is to be found, is based on a 1966 edition, and the second and third sheets, within which second sheet your property is found, is based on a 1970 edition. Where more than one edition is being used it would be inappropriate to refer a crown copyright date.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson