RE:-Gleeson Developments Ltd V SSCLG & Others & Deregulation & Contracting Out Act 1994 & Planning Permission 2005/1468, 2005/1469 on 1-08-2006

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee of 196 Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex IG5 OST, refer to your previous Internal Review Decision on the 4th January 2016.

1. I request your attention that in the Press, There are some Newspapers which does make the Reports, whilst they can write what they like, as they don't mention the dates, I therefore had made a request to your Office about the Minutes of what Sir Erick Pickles MP had stated, It is for your office to provide me with the requested information.

2. I believe that you are aware that Planning Documents are not private documents, as they are Public Documents, where a member of the Public can inspect at any Local Authority Office, and obtain a copy of the document. It is for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to inform the Cabinet Office Minister the Duchy of Lancashire to issue a Statutory Instrument and make some amendments and changes to Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that any Court Order, Transcript of the Judgment and any other Planning decision should be no longer Exempt information.

3. I believe that you do have reasonable access to the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal
Gleeson Developments Ltd V SSCLG & Others
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/civ/...
Case number C1/2013/3410
10th July 2014.
Before Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Ryder and than Lord Justice Sullivan.

I request that you should provide the details of the amount that had been paid to the Barristers Mr Swift QC in the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Justice.

4. I believe that you do have the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994,
Whilst there is Section 70 to 75 which wasn't brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal.

5. I request that you should confirm that you do have copies of the Planning Permission granted by the London Borough of Hackney Council, 2005/1468, 2005/1469, 17 STANWAY STREET, (Rear of 126 Hoxton Street) London N1 6RZ
Demolition of Building(s) in connection with redevelopment of the site in accordance with planning ref: 2005/1469.
Decision date 01-08-2006.
Demolition of Existing Building and erection of a 5 Storey plus Basement level building to provide 650 sqm of Class B1 (business) Floor space and 14 Residential units, comprising 6 x1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 Bed, and 1 x 5 Bed Units together with 2 x Car Parking spaces.

6. There is a Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision
Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/C/11/2161341
17 Stamway Street
Decision date 1st June 2012.

The time to challenge the Inspectors decision had expired from the 1st June 2012.
There is Section 41 (5) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001, if the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government could issue a Statutory Instrument for Appeals out of time.
But to bring a claim for direct or Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 is a period of Six Years.

7. You do have the knowledge of the decision of Imperial Tobacco Ltd Versus the HM Attorney General [1981] AC 718 House of Lords
White Book Service Volume 2 of 2003 on Page 943
A Civil Court ought not to grant a declaration of innocence to a defendant.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Timothy Hayward,

                            
Our reference: 1844467             Information request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Dear ‎Sir/Madam‏
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
Thank you for contacting us on 20 January 2016 requesting (in part):

I therefore had made a request to your Office about the Minutes of what
Sir Erick Pickles MP had stated, It is for your office to provide me with
the requested information. 
 
I will not be able to provide the information you need until your request
has been clarified. Please let me know by 20/04/2016.
 
I am writing to ask you to clarify your request. This is because we need
further details from you in order to identify and locate the information.
Can you let me know:
1. What the minutes/document (above) relate to;
2. What date it was written.

 
Yours faithfully
 
 
Tim Hayward
 
 
[1][email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Timothy Hayward,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee refer to my request made where by Law you were required to provide and furnish the requested information.

I believe that you do have the Knowledge of the Daily Mail Editor Charles Garside Associated Newspapers Ltd whose Fax Number is 020-79373981, they can provide you with the date when Sir Erick Pickles MP had mentioned that the Local Authority were operating as Day Light Robbery. I however on a Point of Law and International Treaties require this information from your Office, as the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 does also apply.

The Equality Act 2010 does apply also to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, where there is Indirect Discrimination, Harassment.

There is a Judgment given in the Court of Appeal
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/...
Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jacob and Mr Justice Warren
Between
Forcelux Ltd Appellant
and
Mr Martyn Ewan Binnie Respondent.

In Paragraph 53 of the Judgment:-
CPR 3.1 (7) which provides "A power of the Court under these rules to make an Order includes a power to vary or revoke the Order."
Paragraph 54 does mention 3.1 (2) (m)

The refusal to provide the requested information does amount to Attempt and Obstruction of Justice.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Timothy Hayward,

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Thank you for your email. We are still not clear what recorded information
held by the Department that you want us to provide. If you can provide us
with a date and the nature of the information you require (is it
Ministerial advice on a particular topic for example?), then we'll do our
best to search for and find the information.

Tim Hayward

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Timothy Hayward,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee refer to my request made where by Law
you were required to provide and furnish the requested information.

I believe that you do have the Knowledge of the Daily Mail Editor
Charles Garside Associated Newspapers Ltd whose Fax Number is
020-79373981, they can provide you with the date when Sir Erick
Pickles MP had mentioned that the Local Authority were operating as
Day Light Robbery. I however on a Point of Law and International
Treaties require this information from your Office, as the Crown
Proceedings Act 1947 does also apply.

The Equality Act 2010 does apply also to the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, where there is Indirect
Discrimination, Harassment.

There is a Judgment given in the Court of Appeal
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/...
Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jacob and Mr Justice Warren
Between
Forcelux Ltd Appellant
and
Mr Martyn Ewan Binnie Respondent.

In Paragraph 53 of the Judgment:-
CPR 3.1 (7) which provides "A power of the Court under these rules
to make an Order includes a power to vary or revoke the Order."
Paragraph 54 does mention 3.1 (2) (m)

The refusal to provide the requested information does amount to
Attempt and Obstruction of Justice.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

show quoted sections

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Timothy Hayward,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee request your attention that You should provide me with your Fax Number, where I can provide you with the copy of the Daily Mail.

I request your attention that there is a Judgment given in the Privy Council on the 18th February 2016. R v Jogee (Appellant) Ruddock (Appellant) V The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica) from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2016...
Hilary Term [2016] UKSC 9 and [2016] UKPC 7.

Since Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (As amended) provides that: "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any Indictable offence.... shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a Principal Offender."

I am aware of this Section from the Republic of Zambia, when I was operating as an Operations Manager in a Mini Bus Services in the Republic of Zambia.

If you refuse to provide the requested information, than I have no Option but to make an Application to the High Court Judge for a Disclosure Order, whilst there is Section 30 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do hereby request for an Internal Review of the decision made by the Officer in the SSCLG, with a Legal Right to make a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Commissioner's Office.

1. I bring to your attention that Article 10, 14 of the Convention Treaties have been breached, whilst If he doesn't understand than his statement is inadmissible evidence due to lack of understanding based on the Civil Evidence Act 1975.

2. On a Point of Law- The SSCLG who has the Power to remove an Inspector under the TCPA 1990, as this Power has not been delegated to any other Officer, where the Complaint should have been referred to the SSCLG.

3. The Treasury Solicitor who does represent many Government Ministers and Departments, they do hold the Information on behalf of the Government Ministers and Department.
The Costs that have been paid to the Barristers on behalf of SSCLG, since you are required to disclose the requested information, and failure to provide the requested information does trigger an Offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

4. Section 1 and 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947- and Section 6 (2) (b) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, This does allow any Person to take Legal Proceedings against the Government Ministers and those who are acting on behalf of the Crown.

5. There are Judgments given in the Court of Appeal where Article 14 has been mentioned.

6. There is the House of Lords decision Myers V Elman [1940] A. C. 282
Since this Judgment is for more than 30 Years, it is no Longer Exempt Information.
When a Solicitor knowingly files a false Evidence Witness Statement before a Court of Law or Tribunal, than He/She is liable to pay the Costs.

I thank you in advance and wait to hear from you

Yours faithfully

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Despatch Box,

                            
Our reference: 1844467             Information request

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Dear Mr Bhamjee
 
Re: email of 22 February 2016
 
Thank you for your email of 22 February 2016, in which you request that
the Department conducts an internal review.

It is not clear from your email as to which aspect of the handling of your
request for information you are dissatisfied with, and I would therefore
be grateful if you could clarify:

a) which request for information you wish the Department to review,
quoting the reference number found on any correspondence from the
Department relating to the case in question; and
b) which aspects you wish me to review

Without this clarification I will be unable to procede with any review,
and will take no further action. Please note that an internal review may
only be conducted in respect of the handling of a request for information
made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004.

Yours sincerely,
 
Ben Heathcote
Lead FOI Business Partner - Finance and Corporate Services
 
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Despatch Box,

Please kindly take notice that Application for Permission of the High Court Judge under Section 42 (3) (3A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg has been made in the High Court of Justice Claim Number CO/605/2016.
The Senior Courts Act 1981 and The Criminal Justice Act 2003 Section 118 does apply.

You have a Statutory Duty of Candour and not to mislead the Court whilst there is a Rule of Law.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Ben Heathcote,

Dear Mr Bhamjee

Thank you for your email. I refer you to my email below.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Heathcote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Despatch Box,

Please kindly take notice that Application for Permission of the
High Court Judge under Section 42 (3) (3A) of the Senior Courts Act
1981 and reference to the Court of Justice of the European
Communities in Luxembourg has been made in the High Court of
Justice Claim Number CO/605/2016.
The Senior Courts Act 1981 and The Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 118 does apply.

You have a Statutory Duty of Candour and not to mislead the Court
whilst there is a Rule of Law.

Yours sincerely,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

show quoted sections