Prosecution for none existent Council Tax liability

Waiting for an internal review by The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman of their handling of this request.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information Act will you confirm or deny that if a Council prosecutes a citizen for Council Tax Arrears it knows he is not liable for, would this constitute maladministration.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Mr Robinson

We cannot deal with 'theoretical situations' under Freedom of
Information provisions. If you want advice on whether a particular issue
would be regarded by the Ombudsman as maladministration - you need to
ring 0845 602 1983 or email our Advice Team at [email address]

The question you are asking is not a Freedom of Information issue.

I have forwarded your previous request to the Advice Team.

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Dear Hilary Pook,

A Council has in fact prosecuted a citizen for Council Tax it knew was not owed. does this constitute maladministration.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()

Hi Fred

The simple answer to your question is YES. If a council does anything unlawfully it also constitutes maladministration. However, if a court has dealt with the matter the LGO have a perfect excuse for not getting involved. If a court hasn't determined the situation the 'unlawful act' is merely an allegation until proven in a court of law and allows the LGO to ignore it because they cannot determine legal rights. If the LGO ignore the alleged unlawful act there is no maladministration, therefore, they will obviously find the council not guilty of maladministration.

I hope you appreciate the catch 22 situation that allows the LGO to send annual letters to councils stating that they have found little if any maladministration to councils that could in fact be committing the most horrific acts of maladministration against it's citizens.

There is also another downside of trying to involve the LGO. Many Councils ignore them whatever the outcome. Sefton is a prime example as is Trafford and many more. You will find an ever growing list here,

http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...

Trevor

http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS left an annotation ()

A Council Tax Court is actually a Council Court.. it is normally run for them by the magistrates.. However.. if it is a proper court is open to debate.

You or anyone else has a right of appeal to the Sec of States (same one as the LGO ) Valuation Tribunal on the issue. It is maladministration. However when they reorganised local government in the 1970s.. the government identified that it was not. You can appeal against the Council being barmy.. and also against the Government having the valuation of your property wrongly identified.

www.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/

You need to talk to the Clerk of the Valuation Tribunal.. and he will tell you what you need to do..

.. a highly pertinent question would be why doesn't the LGO view Council Tax liability appeals as maladministration.. as they don't go to Court.. but to a tribunal.. and why aren't these findings included in the annual letters..

T Thomas left an annotation ()

The answer is because a tribunal is a court.

Francis Irving left an annotation ()

In terms of handling of this request, I've marked it as "not held", as it is indeed a theoretical question. Better to phone them to find out.

If you must use FOI, I would ask for internal documents, policies, memos, emails etc. which are held in the Ombusdman and relate to council tax. Better to have a lead of something more specific to ask for, though.

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Mr Robinson

As with your previous request, this request is not an Freedom of
Information request. I have explained what you should do if you want
advice on whether a particular issue might be regarded as
maladministration by the council.

As your request is not a Freedom of Information matter, we will not put
it through our complaints procedure. So if you remain unsatisfied I
suggest you contact the Information Commissioner's office. You will find
details at: www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Dear Hilary Pook,

Sefton Council has in fact prosecuted a citizen for Council Tax arrears it knew were not owed. is this maladministration.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

My FOI request is now overdue and requires an answer as to why because:

On December 8th 2003 Sefton Council prosecuted me and, obtained by perjured evidence in the Magistrates court, a liability order against me for unpaid Council Tax which their own computer records showed I did not owe.

The Council spent time and public money over a period of more than two years pursuing me for this alleged debt before prosecuting me, during that time the Council continuously made false and malicious statement to me and others, including my MP, regarding the alleged debt and, never ceased to refer to, and send me demands based on their computer records as the reason for the alleged debt, The Council provided me - under the Data Protection Act - and subsequently Merseyside Police with two different versions of forged Council Tax Records showing the alleged debt.

I have provided records and information of my payments of Council Tax held on Seftons computer record which refute the basis of their prosecution of me or liability for debt to: the Ombudsman, the Magistrates, the Prime Minister and Government Ministers, Law Lords, the Police the BBC and the county and high court (who made an extended restraining order preventing me from making claims against the Council regarding Council Tax in 2005 which they still enforce).

When I sued the Council, the Council spent more Council time and resources denying the matter was a civil matter in the civil courts.

Sefton Councils Legal Director admitting in a verified statement to the civil court that what they had done was criminal and not civil.

Conversely Merseyside Police, after interviewing a Sefton officer confirm the (forged ?) computer records referred to the Magistrates by the Council were the basis of my prosecution and that the matter was civil and refuse to investigate my computer records or any evidence that Sefton's records were not genuine under the Computer Misuse Act further.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Mr Robinson

My last communication with you on this matter read as follows:

"As with your previous request, this request is not an Freedom of
Information request. I have explained what you should do if you want
advice on whether a particular issue might be regarded as
maladministration by the council.

As your request is not a Freedom of Information matter, we will not put
it through our complaints procedure. So if you remain unsatisfied I
suggest you contact the Information Commissioner's office. You will find
details at: www.ico.gov.uk."

I have nothing more to say except you should contact our Advice Team if
you want advice on how to make a complaint against Sefton Borough
Council. You can ring 0845 602 1983 or email them on [email address]

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Dear Hilary Pook,

For the absence of doubt.

Are you confirming:

1. That when a Council spends public money on the pursuit of a citizen for Council Tax arrears it knows beyond any doubt whatsoever are not owed by the citizen from perusal of its computer records:

2. That when a Council interferes with the electoral role in an attempt to show the debt is owed:

3. That when a Council spends public money, commits perjury and provides the Police with forged Council Tax records to escape or cover up the crime it has committed.

4. That when a Council gives a citizen money for no legitimate reason and will not accept it back:

5. That when a Council pays its legal officers, who are highly paid legal professionals, along with the Councils Finance Director (who attempts to involve an MP in the matter) and officers of the Finance and Council Tax Administration staff (who say the debt is legitimate) - what must be in the thousands of pounds of public money - to uphold the Councils crimes and neglect of their duties while dealing with the fallacious none payment of Council Tax.

The Council does not commit maladministration as its actions are justified.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

I request an internal review

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

You should not use the Freedom of Information Act nor this website to harass public authorities or vent your anger. You have not submitted a valid FOI request therefore they have no need to respond. The Information Commissioner would reject any complaint you tried to make for the same reason. The Freedom of Information Act allows members of the public access to information held, nothing more nothing less.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

You appear to have joined the site to challenge FOI requests made to the Ombudsman

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

But you haven't made a valid FOI request that's the whole point.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

I trust you are not acting for some third party by putting annotations on my FOI requests ?

fred robinson

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

No, merely trying to help people submit effective FOI requests. It may be worth checking out the following guidance before you waste any more of your time.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

How very altruistic, however there are many more deserving causes to devote your talents to. Try helping someone who is more deserving of your attention than I, you may find it more rewarding.

As your talent lies within the realms of concern about legislation you may find your fulfilment as a CAB helper or at a law centre.

fred robinson

Mike left an annotation ()

Hi Fred,

Unfortunately I have to agree with Anne. I have a similar but less significant council tax problem brewing and have also put in a few FOI requests on other topics, and had the ICO rule on a couple. FOI is intended to give you access to existing information, but you are asking for an opinion. You could ask for accesses to the computer records, emails sent, minutes of meetings considering your letters etc., but not an opinion. You will just be refused by the ICO, so I think this avenue will not help unless you change your FOI request. I would have said that the best path to redress is legal, but you seem to have tried that.

Mike

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mike

It appears that you have joined the site just to add an annotation to my request.

When a Council devotes time and public money to do a thing and that thing is known to a Council to be unlawful, it commits maladministration.

If a Council does a thing that it is allowed to do by law, it does not commit maladministration.

It is the function of the Ombudsman to decide "in his or her opinion" if an act of maladmininistation has been committed and, if it has, to investigate the matter as part of that function as,

maladministration is within his or her jurisdiction notwithstanding any other aspects of a matter,

therefore, the answer to my question is not to say I am asking for an opinion that I have no right to ask for,

the answer to my question is

yes, a Council has such power and does not commit an act of maladministration by acting as it did or no,

a Council has no such power to act as it did and does commit an act of maladministration by doing so.

fred robinson

Mike left an annotation ()

Fred,
Yes I did join to add a comment. However I was searching for remedies with Council Tax, as I have a four figure demand that I consider illegal. I sympathise with your situation, and I have some experience with FOI so I thought I could help. You can ask the same question in a different way, and it becomes a valid FOI request. For example,
"Please provide a copy of the law under which a council may prosecute a citizen for Council Tax Arrears. Please provide a copy of the procedure used by the Council to validate the information used to establish the arrears. Please identify how the Council would check that these records are correct/unaltered and if alterations are found, how the history is reported."
Mike

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

Me too Fred.

Most of the FOI requests Mike suggests need to be put to the council not the LGO.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mike

Why not, as a person who could not be connected with me, ask the same question of the Ombudsman as me and see what happens.

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

I agree with me

fred robinson

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

Just what part of 'you haven't submitted a valid FOI request' don't you understand Fred and why should others make the same mistakes as you?

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Ann Hyde

The part I don't understand

fred robinson

Mike left an annotation ()

I'm not at that stage yet, I'm still debating with the council. I do have an FOI with a different department to back up one of the legal points. If I don't get satisfaction from the Council I will contact the LGO, and I may also sue them through small claims just to focus their minds.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mike

If you do sue, I hope you have better luck in your case than I did when I sued my Council for obtaining a liability orders again by a malicious prosecution of me for fallacious Council Tax arrears which was based on their own breaches of the Finance Act and forged Council Tax computer records and, in court by committing perjury and, which the Magistrates had, despite my evidence to the contrary in the form of the accurate Councils computer record proving me innocent, "found" me guilty of.

A verdict that the Clerk of the Court later informed me was obtained by "evidence" he had "discovered" after the trial, that had verified the decision of the magistrates.

The Council then prosecuted me again for none payment of Council Tax which, they had given me a 100% discount for and, which was seemingly done to support and justify the "evidence" the clerk of the court "discovered" after the first trial, seemingly based on that evidence - which was that the Council had given me a 100% discount of my Council Tax three years earlier by "accident" - the court found me guilty again and issued another liability order against me.

Despite owing, and having two liability orders against me for none payment of Council Tax of around £800 and, court costs, the Council gave me a "retrospective" cash rebate of £125.66, for Council Tax payments I had never made.

The Police were informed by me of the malicious prosecution and the forged Council Tax record some three weeks after my court first court appearance and did not prosecute the Council.

In my claim against the Council,the Council's Legal Director stated to the civil court in a verified defence, that the matters were criminal and the civil court had no jurisdiction.

The Police, with regard to this statement asserted the matter was a civil one. I continued to, and still do, send evidence to the Police regarding the crimes committed by the Council, the Police do not respond.

Subsequently the Police refuse to respond to my assertion as they said they had obtained "evidence" by interviewing a Council officer, held with regard to "Council Tax Computer Records used to obtain a liability order against me".

This "evidence" is still seemingly relied on by the Police as a reason not to prosecute the Council and, despite being supplied by myself over and over with evidence - in the form of the 'real' Council computer record I hold that proves the Councils record the Police were supplied with are forged - still asserted the matter is civil and refuse to take action, or even acknowledge my correspondence to them regarding this matter.

This matter has also been brought to the attention of the Information Commission (forged Council Tax Computer Records), The Local Government Ombudsman (Maladministration) Government Ministers and the Prime Minister. None have given my complaint and evidence a constructive response or taken any action or investigation as to the veracity of my complaints and assertions of crime by the Councils officers.

The civil court, without deciding if the matter was civil or criminal, struck out my civil claim without giving me any reason and awarded costs to the Council against me.

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

Has your advice team come up with and answer to the 'request' you forwarded to them on November 4th 2008.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

I am out of the office until 5 January 2009. If you have an urgent enquiry on Tuesday 23rd or Wednesday 24th, please contact Jackie Feeney at [email address] or ring her on 020 7217 4719. The office is closed from 25 December until 5 January 2009. Happy Christmas

Dear Hilary Pook,

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

george left an annotation ()

Getting information in relation to the action taken by the council in relation to pursuing a council tax claim involves asking exactly the right questions,

maybe ask the LGO how many people have complained about that issue, i think they would have to answer that.

If your trying to find out how many mistakes, false accounts your council does per year, its in your councils accounts, read http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewforum.php?... after 5th Jan i will do a post called true figure behind council tax.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear George

1. I don't understand what you mean by pursuing a "Council Tax Claim" as such things as "Claims for Council Tax Benefit" are controlled by the Finance Act as is a Councils demand for "Council Tax Payments". A citizen, as far as I know, cannot "Pursue a Council Tax Claim," unless of course you know better ?

2. I am not interested in finding out about other complaints, why should I be ?

3. Mistakes do not constitute deliberate acts, they constitute crime. Nobody has ever suggested to me that Malicious Prosecution based on Computer Misuse is not a crime, unless you know better ?

I look forward to reading your posting on January 5th 2009 which may clarify your contentions.

fred robinson

george left an annotation ()

it sounds like you have realy been put through it and i understand fully your frustration.

the posts from mike and ann on 23rd of december is the first step forward. And best way. FIA your council. mikes suggestions are particularly usfull.

Does anyonre n=know a more appropriate forum/place to discuss council tax. I feel i may be able to help mike and maybe fred. but this is not the place

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

Not with regard to crime...the best staring point for you is to try looking up the computer Misuse Act or, apply for a job in local government, I'm sure your talent for misunderstanding the Finance Act would not go to to waste there as it does with me.

fred robinson

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

Dear Fred

I was merely responding to George's question,

[Does anyone know a more appropriate forum/place to discuss council tax. I feel i may be able to help mike and maybe fred. but this is not the place.]

I already know you don't like taking advice but I agree with George this is not a forum. It's a website to submit Freedom of Information requests, something unfortunately you still don't appear to have grasped.

Dear Hilary Pook,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW AND REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING

Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5

Time limits on carrying out internal reviews

following requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced this guidance as part of a series of good practice guidance designed to help understand and apply the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). FOIA makes reference to complaints procedures at section 45 (concerning the Code of Practice) and at section 50; both relate to circumstances where an applicant wishes to complain about the response of a public authority to a request for information. The reference at section 50 concerns the discretion that the Commissioner is allowed to exercise not to make a decision in cases where a complainant has not exhausted a public authority’s complaints procedure (also referred to as internal review). The Commissioner considers it important that internal reviews are completed as promptly as possible and so is introducing this guidance setting out what he considers to be a reasonable timescale for public authorities to undertake an internal review following a request by an applicant. Section VI of the Section 45 Code of Practice states that “each public authority should have a procedure in place for dealing with complaints .... in relation to its handling of requests for information.” This comprises desirable practice for the purposes of FOIA, but it should be noted that under the Environmental Information Regulations it is a requirement for public authorities to consider representations made by applicants for information. Consequently, most public authorities under FOIA should already have the procedures in place to allow them to perform an internal review. It is also important to note that Refusal Notices must include either details of the public authority’s complaints procedure or a statement that it does not have one. This will assist the Commissioner in determining whether or not an applicant, on making a complaint under section 50, has exhausted the complaints procedure of the public authority.

The spirit of the Code is that internal reviews should be completed as soon as possible. For example:

• a complaints procedure should be designed to allow prompt determination of complaints (para 39) • target times should be set for dealing with complaints (para 42).

• the code also recommends that the target times are reviewed regularly and that each authority should publish them together with information on its success in meeting those targets.

• there is also an implied recommendation, supported by guidance issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, that the complainant should be kept fully informed throughout the review process. The Commissioner supports these recommendations and intends, from time to time, to monitor conformity with them. Some other factors to be noted are as follows:

• FOIA requires a request to be complied with “promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt” which suggests that internal reviews should also be completed promptly.

• Internal review is an important second opportunity for the public authority to engage with an applicant and there are clear benefits to both parties if the review is concluded within a reasonable timeframe.

• The Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 stipulates an internal review should be completed within 20 working days following receipt of the request for review.

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the requester and explain why more time is needed.

In our view, in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days. In such cases we would expect a public authority to be able to demonstrate that it had commenced the review procedure promptly following receipt of the request for review and had actively worked on the review throughout that period. Some public authorities have complaints procedures which have a number of stages or levels. The Commissioner does not expect an internal review of a response to an FOI request to have more than one stage. Given that this is a review of a statutory process with clear rights for requesters and obligations on public authorities, a degree of formality is expected.

Enforcement

The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his complaint considered under section 50. Equally, it will be beneficial to both complainant and public authority if an internal review leads to a prompt and satisfactory outcome such that a subsequent complaint to the Commissioner is not required. The Commissioner has therefore set out above what he regards as “reasonable” in terms of the timescale for completing an internal review. He is keen to ensure that the time limit is adhered to and that there are no unreasonable delays in carrying out reviews.

Internal reviews are referred to in the Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews may lead to monitoring by the Enforcement team and, in some instances, structured intervention, for example, the issuing of a Practice Recommendation. The Commissioner’s Enforcement Strategy provides more detail about practice recommendations and structured intervention.

More information

If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of freedom of information, please contact us.

Phone: 08456 30 60 60 01625 54 57 45 (National rate) E-mail: please use the online enquiry form on our website

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Anne Hyde

Naughty George

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear George

have you thought about a career in counselling ?

fred robinson

george left an annotation ()

Thanks anne the will be very helpfull

I dont understand you fred, so i will bow out of this conversation

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Mr Robinson

You received a response direct from Mr Buckley. If you have anything
further to say on the matter I suggest you contact him. As previously
stated, this is not being dealt with as a Freedom of Information
request.

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Dear Hilary Pook,

ARE YOU REFUSING TO CONDUCT AN INTERNAL REVIEW. IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A REASON UNDER THE ACT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

ARE YOU REFUSING TO CONDUCT AN INTERNAL REVIEW. IF SO PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A REASON UNDER THE ACT, BECAUSE.

YOU NOW KNOW THE REQUEST IS NOT WITH REGARD TO A "THEORETICAL SITUATION" BUT TO A REAL ONE A FACT THAT, IN EFFECT ALTERS THE WORDS "IF" AND "WOULD" IN MY REQUEST:

WHICH WAS

"Under the Freedom of Information Act will you confirm or deny that
IF a Council prosecutes a citizen for Council Tax Arrears it knows
he is not liable for, WOULD this constitute maladministration."

TO

Under the Freedom of Information Act will you confirm or deny that
WHEN a Council prosecutes a citizen for Council Tax Arrears it knows
he is not liable for, DOES this constitute maladministration.

OR, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, DO YOU WISH ME TO SEND THE REWORDED FOI REQUEST ABOVE TO YOU ?

I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Hilary Pook, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

I don't have to provide you with a reason under the Act because your
request is not covered by the Act.

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR GEORGE

ITS JANUARY 5TH, HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO YOUR PROBLEM WITH YOUR COUNCIL TAX:

IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE COUNCIL'S COMPUTER HAS INCORRECT RECORDED YOUR COUNCIL TAX:

MAKE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSION (THE IC), UNDER THE DATE PROTECTION ACT (THE DPA) AND TELL THEM THAT YOUR "PERSONAL INFORMATION" HELD BY YOUR COUNCIL ON THEIR COMPUTER RECORD IS INCORRECT.

THE IC KNOW THAT UNDER A COURT RULING IN THE "DURANT V FINANCIAL SERVICES" (DOWNLOAD AND READ IT) CASE THAT:

"TAX" INFORMATION WAS HELD BY THE COURT TO BE "PERSONAL INFORMATION" UNDER THE DPA AND, THAT

THE DPA ACT (DOWNLOAD AND READ IT) GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO REMEDY THAT INFORMATION AS IT IS HELD ON COMPUTER BY YOUR COUNCIL IN BREACH OF THE ACT,

THE IC WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ON HOW TO PROCEED IN THIS MATTER, OR YOU MAY DOWNLOAD IT FROM THE INTERNET.

YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO CLAIM COMPENSATION IN THE COUNTY COURT, OR

HAVE THE POLICE PROSECUTE YOUR COUNCIL UNDER THE 'COMPUTER MISUSE ACT' (DOWNLOAD AND READ IT) IF THEIR RECORDS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY ALTERED TO SHOW YOU DO OWE MONEY THAT YOU DO NOT OWE.

YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL ANSWER TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN FOR MALADMINISTRATION, UNLESS YOUR COMPLAINT IS A 'THEORETICAL ONE' - OF COURSE.

A FIRST STEP COULD BE TO ASK YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL A BROAD FOI REQUEST BUT, DON'T BE VEXATIOUS WHEN YOU DO SO.

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR ANNE HYDE

WHY NOT REVEAL WHAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO"HELP" GEORGE AND MYSELF WITH ?

fred robinson

Anne Hide left an annotation ()

It's obvious nobody can help you Fred, so like Mike and George I will also leave you to your persistantly unreasonable rantings.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR ANNE HYDE

PHEW!

fred robinson

george left an annotation ()

dear fred

join the poll tax forums, lets have a little chat if thats ok. on there am george the

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR GEORGE

WHEN YOU POST YOUR 'COMPLAINT' WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO CHAT ABOUT.

fred robinson

Mike left an annotation ()

Dear Fred,

Honestly, you're venting at the wrong people.

Dear George,

Very busy this month but I'll pick it up again nearer Feb.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR GEORGE

HONESTLY I'M NOT

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

Making or supplying articles for use in frauds
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply
any article—
(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in
connection with fraud, or
(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12
months were a reference to 6 months.
8 “Article”
(1) For the purposes of—
(a) sections 6 and 7, and
(b) the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for
use in the course of or in connection with fraud,
“article” includes any program or data held in electronic form.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

FOR INFORMATION:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992

s.9 Liability of spouses

(1)Where—

(a )a person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling of which he is a resident and any day is married to another person; and

(b) that other person is also a resident of the dwelling on that day but would not, apart from this section, be so liable, those persons shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired).

(3) For the purposes of this section two persons are married to each other if they are a man and a woman—

(a) who are married to each other; or

(b) who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife.

Schedule 4

Admissibility of evidence

14 (1) Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Schedule—

(a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and

(b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall be admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

(2) In this paragraph—

“document of record” means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;

“responsible person” means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;

“statement” includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

FOR INFORMATION:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992

s.9 Liability of spouses

(1)Where—

(a )a person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling of which he is a resident and any day is married to another person; and

(b) that other person is also a resident of the dwelling on that day but would not, apart from this section, be so liable, those persons shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired).

(3) For the purposes of this section two persons are married to each other if they are a man and a woman—

(a) who are married to each other; or

(b) who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife.

Schedule 4

Admissibility of evidence

14 (1) Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Schedule—

(a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and

(b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall be admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

(2) In this paragraph—

“document of record” means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;

“responsible person” means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;

“statement” includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Hilary Pook,

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

Dear Hilary Pook,

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