Register of land under section 31A of the Highways Act 1980

fred robinson made this Freedom of Information request to Sefton Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Sefton Borough Council of their handling of this request.

Dear Richard Roscoe

Will you confirm or deny the Council has a register of maps, statements and declarations regarding land at Seaforth.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe

I reiterate to you facts and evidence known to the Council to help you clarify in your mind the response you will give to my FOI request.

On December 24th 1993 the Council sold 3.5 acres of land to Maritime Housing Association to build 49 houses on which consisted of two separate parcels of land owned by the Council that had been taken from title's LA54086 and LA45343 in March and April 1977 and referenced MS301603, these two parcels of land were registered to the Council in September 1992 and united by a section of the public highway in Maple Close Seaforth on a transfer map when they were (supposedly) sold to Maritime Housing Association on December 24th 1993 and (supposedly) registered with the Land Registry under title MS351603 on August 31st 1994.

This entire parcel of land, contained in title MS601603 - including the section of Maple Close - was (fraudulently) represented by Maritime's solicitors to the Land Registry by a certified OS map composed of two versions of OS SJ3396, as the area of land being bought shown on the transfer map which was composed of

one version of OS SJ3396 dated 1969, and the other version of OS SJ3396 dated 1978 which had been altered (forged).

It is the 'inner' section of the 1969 OS SJ3396 map as outlined in red on the certified transfer map that has been forged by alteration. The forged area is enclosed by the 1978, or the 'outer' section.

The outer section of the forged map is a Sefton Council map dated 1978 Marked "Kepler Street HSG Area as Existing." this map does not accord with the 1969 OS SJ3396 as , amongst other things, it shows the Star of the Sea Junior School in existence, a school that had not been built in 1969 and. which proves beyond any doubt the entire map is a forgery.

This map shows no screen wall between 19 Lime Grove, and the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove some 5 metres from its gable wall, despite that Wall being on both the 1969 and 1978 versions of OS SJ3396.

I have always presumed, since the Land Registry disclosed this map to me in 2006 as a map certified by Maritime's solicitors, that, due to the alteration being in the 1969 section and showing the land that Maritime bought from Sefton, the forgery had been performed by Maritimes solicitors who, like Maritime, do not respond to my accusations against them.

In 1994 the Council provided this 1978 version of OS SJ3396 to GTB Demolition Ltd, the contractors who demolished the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove between March14th and April 6th 1994 and, in May 2000, the Council's Technical Services Director also provided this 1978 map to a structural engineer who provided a survey

1.- which was commissioned after the Council and Maritime had obtained my permission to conduct it, was partially funded by the Council and partly funded by Maritime and appears to have been conducted with regard to a "boundary dispute" as outlined in the Building Act -

2.- the payment of half the fee was paid by Sefton, payment of the other half of the fee was seemingly refused by Maritime who disagreed with his findings -

3.- the surveyor puts Maritime's refusal to pay as being that he could not complete his survey without monitoring the gable wall at the cost of some £1,000 which the Council and presumably Maritime, refused to pay -

This survey was supposed to quantify damage to my gable wall cause by the truncated "screen wall" being demolished between March 14th and April 6th 1994. this truncated "screen wall" then became known as the"nib wall".

SOME FACTS

This damage was not related to 1978 as in 1978 this damage did not exist as the screen wall was still in situ. this fact is recorded by Sefton Council on March 7th 1994 by a photographic survey taken by them as Maritime's Appointed Agents.

Maritime's builder, Fawley, on entry to the site in September 1994, allegedly took photographs of my gable wall in a survey for their insures prior to commencing their building work.

A Judge at Liverpool county court states, with no evidence whatsoever in support, he has found the damage to my property was caused between March and September 1994 and claimed for in 1995 by my solicitors, the damage referred to was latent until July 1998, legal aid was obtained (involving a forged witness statement that was not signed by me being sent to the Legal Services Commission) regarding a proposed legal action against Sefton Council that in March 2000 was contemplated, and latterly in 2001, contemplated against Maritime Housing Association, ultimately my Legal Aid funding was discharged on the basis I was asking for a £1,000 fee to monitor my property which was disproportionate to the value of my proposed claim.

Maritime Housing Association stated to me, and copied to Sefton Council on March 4th 1999:

"On the evidence I have it would appear, therefore, that the "nib wall was removed during the demolition contract."

On September 13th 2000, the Council's demolition contractors wrote the following to me:

"We did not leave the site until Thursday 21st April 1994...there were special instructions to protect your property during the demolition, This included the nib wall that abutted your gable wall...our foremen...remembers the nib wall was still in place when we left."

The outcome of the 2000 structural survey resulted in the Council offering my solicitors, via the structural engineer, a £1.000 status quo payment for 10% damage to my gable wall which, evidently Sefton acknowledged liability for as being caused by the demolition of the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove. £1,000 being 10% of the cost of rebuilding that gable wall at that time. the Surveyor stated in his report of May 2000 that the owner of the demolished wall would be liable to me for the damage and, subsequently stated to my solicitors the Council were "obviously" culpable.

Another Judge at Liverpool county court, - in a claim I made against the Structural Engineers firm regarding his assertions about the ownership of the land and the culpability of Sefton - stated while accepting I was misled until October 2000 regarding the ownership of the land at Kepler Street: told me that on the production of privileged information from my solicitor by the defendant dated 1996, he was, with no evidence to substantiate it, that he "presuming" I had had the benefit of a solicitor who's "responsibility" it had been to inform me of that fact of the ownership of the land in 1996, and not the Council's or Maritime's in 1999. In fact my solicitors attempt to clarify this point had been greeted by silence from the Council.

The issue of the ownership of the land at Kepler had not arisen at any material time prior to December 1998 when I wrote concerning it to Maritime and Sefton. On February 1st 1999, Maritime Housing Association told me their "records" confirmed the land had not been transferred to them until "mid 1995" a contention known to the Council since February 1999.

Clearly if that were true, there was no reason for my solicitors to question Sefton as to who owned the land in 1994, neither questioned the ownership of the land mentioned in the structural engineer report in May 2000.

On June 30th 2000 the Council's Technical Services Director wrote to me - after being sent Fawley's photographs of September 1994 - stating:

"If the wall was still standing at the time of the disposal of the land to Maritime it would have become their property. As we cannot pinpoint the date the wall was removed it is not possible to be certain of ownership at the time of removal."

On June 4th 2000 the Council's technical Services director wrote the following to me with regard to the structural engineer report dated May 2000:

"the matter will now be placed in the hands of the Council's insurers,"

On July 18th 2000, the structural engineer telephoned my solicitors stating:

"The Council would like to see this case go away and they would quite likely settle this case for £1.000."

On August 11th 2000 the Council's Technical services director wrote the following to the Deputy Labour Labour of the Council:

"I can confirm that Mr Robinson's claim was passed into the hands of out insurers, xxxxx who are in correspondence with Mr Robinson and it is they who will determine whether his claim id effected by time limitation."

On September 15th 2000 the Labour Leader of the Council wrote the following to me:

"As you know your claim has been passed into the hands of the Council's insurers who are in correspondence with yourself and it is they who will determine whether your claim is affected by time limitation or not.

On September 15th 2000, Fawley, confirmed the contractual date for possession of the Kepler Street site was March 14th 1994, they refused to disclose their September 1994 photographs to me and refused to disclose the name of their insurers who, they say had required these photographs to be taken. Fawley has sent these photographs to Maritime on March 4th 1999 and to Seftons Technical Services Director who has included them in his brief the structural engineer, during the survey, i showed the engineer Seftons photographs showing the in situ nib wall which are quartz dated July 3rd 1994.

On July 27th 2000 the Labour Leader of the Council - after being briefed by the Technical Services Director - wrote the following to me:

"I understand the matter has now been referred to the Council's insurers. with regard to the ownership of the nib wall, this is still under consideration."

On September 7th 2000 the Council's insurers wrote to me regarding Claim number RR98XN, Incident Date 17th January 1004, Our Insured Sefton MBC.

SOME HISTORY

At some time after 1992, when the Council's Public Liability Insurers. xxxxx wrote their policy with the Council, the Council provided them with a copy of the forged OS SJ3396 which, the insurers put into evidence in 2004 in a claim (4LV11339) I made against them regarding,

a fraudulent insurance claim I had allegedly made against the Council referenced W215732 and dated 1993. January 1st 1994 and January 17th 1994 regarding damage to my property caused by the demolition of none existent buildings as,

notified to the Council's Technical Services Director on December 12th 1999, in a memo referenced GRB/MHS/HSG when I allegedly lived in a "mid terrace location in Lime Grove", a fact that is refuted by the 1978 and 1969 versions of OS SJ3396. This memo also confirms that the area sold to Maritime was:

"Developed by the Council in conjunction with Maritime Housing Association during the period January 1994 to September 1995"

involving - "demolition of 7 blocks of 4 storey maisonettes and the construction of 49 new 2 storey traditionally built houses"...

[it also] "involved the removal of some dwellings at the end of the terrace in which Mr Robinson's dwelling had formally been in a mid terrace location", and

"Consequently Mr Robinson's Dwelling became end of terrace and the party wall a gable wall" and that

"Mr Robinson had made a claim against the Council in respect of this work which had been referred to the Council's insurance Section under their reference W215732", and consequently

"Clearly there was a high possibility that the redevelopment work would have provided Mr Robinson with the opportunity to make a further claim for damage...this time Mr Robinson's' allegations were specifically in relation to cracking that had taken place to the gable wall of his property."

On January 12th 2000, the Council wrote to me and copied to my MP the following statement:

"I am aware that you have been in contact with the local MP.'s office and that you apparently referred to "damage to your gable wall arising from the removal of the nibwall...if this is so then I advise you that all correspondence will be passed to the Councils Insurance Section who will then continue to deal with the matter in conduction with the Council's legal Representatives. I would also point out to you that the Council's Insurance section still have on record information relating to a previous claim made by, you in regard to your gable wall and which was apparently settled off in August 1997."

No such settlement ever occurred.

On January 24th 2000 the Council's Technical Services wrote to me stating:

"I do not believe it would be fruitful to engage in further correspondence raising endless queries until we have a full understanding of your claim."

On January 26th 2000 the Councils Technical Services Director wrote the following to me:

"I strongly recommend that you set out in full your grievances against the Council so that we may be able to provide a comprehensive response to it and if necessary involve our insurers."

The Council clearly has knowledge of both the forged OS SJ3396 dated 1969 and 1978 and the 1993 version that was forged from them and,

by reference to them both, knew that the demolition of 21 Lime Grove had not resulted in the "party wall becoming a gable wall" as it possessed factual evidence 19 and 21 Lime Grove had never been adjoined.

The Ordnance Survey say they did not produce the 1978 version of OS SJ3396 but, by virtue of the changes to it from the 1969 version, it appears that Sefton, as licensees of the Ordnance Survey, had, as required by the regulations, altered the 1969 version of OS SJ3396 to show the Star of the Sea School and applied to the Ordnance Survey for a licence to use the amended version of OS SJ3396 1978 which, is then referenced with a HSG number by the Council.

For some undisclosed reason, in May 2000, the Council's Technical Services Director also provided a 1956 version of OS SJ396 to the Structural Engineer who surveyed my gable wall a map that shows 21 Lime Grove as a large detached house separated by some distance from 19 Lime Grove,

This proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Council's contention that 19 and 21 Lime Grove were ever adjoined by a party wall is fallacious, a contention known to the Technical Services Director in May 2000 and a contention that cannot found a legitimate insurance claim.

The Technical Services Director also provided a 1993 version of OS SJ3396 to the engineer which does not show the "screen wall" running between the gable wall's of 19 and 21 Lime Grove which is shown on the Council's 1978 OS SJ3396, and is the "screen wall" erased from the 1969 version sent to the Land Registry in December 1993 and certified by Maritime's solicitors and subsequently became an integral part of the forged map produced by the Land Registry to register the land on August 31st 1994 showing the "screen wall" in situ, and the absence of the Star of the Sea junior school, but the presence and absence of a number or buildings that are not shown on the 1969 version of OS SJ3396 including housing and a church.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Richard Roscoe,

Dear Mr Robinson,

We have considered your request and decided that it is vexatious and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.

The reasons that we have concluded that your request is vexatious are that it is
· designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
· has the effect of harassing the public authority;
This is based upon the formal guidance issued by the Information Commissioners office.

As ever, I include a link to a recent press release from ICO. This makes clear that even a simple request can be declared vexatious because of the number and nature of an applicants previous requests on the same subject.

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

I also attach the current guidance for your information, because our refusal is based upon this and the recent ICO and Tribunal decisions that it quotes. We have also taken into account your long history of similar correspondence with this Council around this subject, and the 30+ related requests that you have submitted via whatdotheyknow over the last 2 months.

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

Of course, If you feel that our handling of your FOI request is unsatisfactory you can complain to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow
Cheshire. SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

Richard Roscoe.
Data Protection and
Information Security Officer.
Sefton Council ICT Client.
4th Floor, Merton House,
Stanley Rd, Bootle. L20 3JA.

Tel: 0151 934 4416
Please don't print this e-mail unless you have to. It wastes paper and it can create a security risk.

<>This message is intended for named addressees only and may contain confidential,
privileged or commercially sensitive information. If you are not a named addressee
and this message has come to you in error you must not copy, distribute or take any action
on its content. Please return the message to the sender by replying to it immediately
and then delete it from your computer and destroy any copies of it.

All e-mail communications sent to or from Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
may be subject to recording and / or monitoring in accordance with current legislation.

This message does not create or vary any contractual relationship between Sefton
Metropolitan Borough Council and you.

Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communication medium and Sefton Metropolitan
Borough Council does not accept responsibility for changes made to this message
after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that this message is virus-free,
it is the recipient's responsibility to carry out virus checks as appropriate and ensure
that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not
adversely affect their systems or data. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council does not
accept any responsibility in this regard."

Dear Richard Roscoe,

According to Lancashire County Council the Council does have such maps and titles to land and I refer you the letter to me from the Council's CEO in December 2000 stating the Council's archive held details of land sales held in its vaults.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

“IF YOU WISH TO FIND THE CRIMINALS, DON’T FOLLOW THE CRIMINALS, FOLLOW THE MONEY.”

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

In 1962: Crosby Council, initiated a compulsory purchase order to buy a plot of land to the south of Lime Grove consisting of Maple Grove, Willow Grove, Bangor Street and Beaumaris Street which is shown on OS SJ3396.

This land was subsequently filed under title LA45343 at the Land Registry.

In December 1964: Land to the north of Lime Grove, bought under a compulsory purchase order by Crosby Council, was registered under title LA45086 at the Land Registry using OS SJ3396 dated 1955.

By 1968: Numerous streets to the north of 19 Lime Grove, including 21 Lime Grove, had been demolished, the land cleared, and maisonettes built on it. This land became known as the Kepler Street Estate.

One of the maisonette blocks, 21 to 39 Lime Grove, was built some 5 metres from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove.

The level of the land adjacent to 19 Lime Grove was consequently lowered by Crosby Council’s contractors to accommodate the building of these maisonettes, and the support that this land had previously given to 19 Lime Groves gable wall was removed and, in so doing, exposed the shallow footing of part of 19 Lime Grove’s gable wall.

Crosby Council’s building contractors, Mathew and Mumby, subsequently replaced the former support with two Party Boundary Structures in the forms of what are known as, the ‘screen wall' and the 'old footings' some 700mm square which were constructed abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around 1968.

The first and most significant of these structures being the ‘old footings.’ The term 'old footings' a misnomer as they 'footed' nothing and were in fact a ‘buttress.’ They remain in place today and, with the land they stand on, are, and have been since 1994, the property of Maritime Housing Association.

The second was a wall built abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove around its centre, and extending to abut the gable wall of the maisonette block, 21 to 39 Lime Grove near its front elevation.

The location of this wall is of some significance as it was constructed at the point where the footings of the gable wall descend into a cellar and thus obviate the need for support beyond that point.

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

This is borne out by the fact that the brick cladding of the gable wall of the maisonettes was, the same brick as used to construct the screen wall, and obviously, both structures stood on Crosby Council’s land.

The structure the ‘screen wall’ was first shown on OS SJ3396 in October 1969, and by October 1989, (according to a ruling in the House of Lords) 19 Lime Grove had obtained a legal right to the support it gave.

Beyond the rear of the screen wall where, the footings were exposed by the excavation of the land, is where the old footings abutted it, and from there commenced, it is abundantly clear that no other purpose can be attributed to this constructions other than to give support to the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove and, that purpose, in the absence of any other, would be obvious to an engineer, architect, surveyor or any competent builder.

This contention is borne out by the fact that the old footings extend beyond the gable wall and continue to give support not only to the gable wall but also to the boundary wall which, extends some four metres from the gable wall.

The ‘old footings’ are still in situ but, have never been recorded on an OS map. They could not be removed at any time after 1984 without causing structural damage to my property.

In 1973: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which did not included the Star of the Sea Junior School, built in 1974, but did included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In 1978: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn which included the Star of the Sea Junior School, the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In March 1977: The land, known as the Kepler Street Estate, filed at the Land Registry in 1964 under the title number LA45343 using the 1969 OS SJ3396 map: had removed from it a parcel of land re-registered under title MS351603 which included the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' still shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

In April 1977 The land filed at the Land Registry under title number LA45343 using OS SJ3396 dated 1966: had removed from it two parcels of land that were also re-registered under title MS351603. The 1966 OS SJ3396 did not include the maisonettes 21 to 39 Lime Grove with the boundary structure, the 'screen wall' shown running at right angles between the respective gable walls of 19, and 21 to 39 Lime Grove, because in 1966 they had not been built.

In 1984/5 Sefton Council revamped the maisonettes including 21 to 39 Lime Grove and reduced the screen wall from some 5 metres long to a 'nib wall' some 1.5 metres long and built a pier on its end.

Clearly Sefton Council also attached some significance to the screen wall’s role of support to my gable wall, and just as clearly, their actions prove that they owned it by virtue of them reducing and strengthening it, something Maritime Housing Association seemed unaware of, because when they wrote to me on October 5th 1999 - in response to a photograph of the nib wall in situ, taken by Sefton Council (their appointed agents) on March 14th 1994 during a survey which, in June 2000, Maritime did know about and, which they also (then, if not before) knew was prior to the demolition of the maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove - they stated:

“Sefton as our agent, are responsible for controlling building operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still taking place up to September 1994, which had nothing to do with Maritime…looking at the photograph you have sent me I notice what appears to be either a newly built brick pier attached to your wall, or an old pier that has been repointed…I would question who constructed, or repointed, the brick pier. ”

In 1989: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

“Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

On September 25th 1992: The three titles, taken from Titles LA54086 and LA45343, and filed under MS351603, were Registered separately to Sefton MBC at Bootle Town Hall, and Southport Town Hall.

On October 28th 1993: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub Committee resolved, that:

“Demolition of maisonette blocks at Kepler Street prior to development by Maritime Housing Association. (1) That the appropriate officer be authorised to implement the demolition works by acceptance of the tender of GTB Demolition company…in the sum of £95,693 subject to the land being acquired by Maritime Housing Association by December 31st 1993. That subject to (1) above the Borough Property Services Officer be authorised to issue a letter of intent in advance of formal contract documentation.”

On December 16th 1992: Sefton Council’s Housing Standing Sub Committee considered the report of the Borough Property Services Officer recommending the transfer of land for two new build sites to Maritime Housing Association.

On December 13th 1993: A new version of OS SJ3396 was drawn showing no screen wall between 19 and 21 to 39 Lime Grove.

On December 24th 1993 Sefton Council and Maritime Housing Association, after taxation, signed and sealed the transfer documents for the sale of 3.5 acres of land under titles 1. (a) LA45086 and (b) LA45343.

This land consisted of the three plots filed in March and April 1977 with the Land Registry under the title numbers LA45086 and LA45343 re-referenced to Sefton on September 25th 1992 which, the transfer document shows were to be given a new title number with another two parcels of land, i.e.:

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

(d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated December 16th 1993 made by Michael Scott.

There were on December 24th 1993, to my knowledge, five distinct OS SJ3396, maps of the Kepler Street estate available, they were:

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

The fifth dated December 13th 1993 – showing no screen wall

Bound with the transfer documents was a ‘cut and pasted’ version of OS map SJ3396 comprising of: an ‘outer section’ being OS SJ3396 dated 1978 showing the Star of the Sea School and,

an ‘inner section’ depicting the land filed under titles MS351603, united by a section of public highway named Maple Close.

The screen wall, despite being on both of the versions of OS SJ3396 used in the forgery, had been erased from this transfer map.

The altered OS map SJ3396 provided for sale of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depict the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as neither Sefton or Maritime showed "due diligence" in the sale of the land in breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

“It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of the date herein between the property herby transferred and the adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are maintainable and repairable as such.”

This land is identified at 3, of the transfer documents as land referenced by Planning Permission as 93/03897/S. this reference was given to me by Sefton Council’s Planning Department as land provided for: “Erection of single story and 2 storey dwellings after demolition of the existing maisonettes.”

This permission was the permission granted on August 13th 1993.

The above dwellings are all now in situ on the land registered to Sefton Council under title MS351603 on September 25th 1992, taken from title LA43086 1977.

These dwellings are also identified in a ‘memo’ from Sefton’s Mr Barr, to Sefton’s Mr Williams: Referenced HSG 1188/2, and dated November 12th 1999 in which Mr Barr states, with regard to 19 Lime Grove – with a twist as to responsibility:

“This particular dwelling lies within an area which was redeveloped by the Council in conjunction with Maritime Housing Association during the period January 1994 to September 1995. The work basically involved the demolition of 7 blocks of 4 storey maisonettes and the construction of 49 new 2 storey traditionally built houses as part of the City Challenge program relating to relocation of residents of the former Rimrose Housing Estate.”

And further, with another twist:

On November 16th 1999, Fawley Construction, Maritime’s Building contractor, wrote the following to me:

1. “Our site plan 417/01 was adapted from Sefton Council’s drawing HSG 1187.1A which did not show a nib wall attached to your property, therefore one was not included on our drawing submitted for planning approval.”

2. Drawing HSG 1187, a used as part of the transfer map, and is marked as a Sefton Planning Department drawing based on OS SJ3396 dated 1978, which has had the screen wall erased from it.

3. This clearly shows that Sefton and Fawley, if not Maritime, had a drawing, and knowledge, at the planning stage of the development in August 1993 that showed no nib wall abutting my gable wall. All three had contractual obligations to each other.

On August 31st 1994 the land shown on the forged OS map used to transfer the land at both Kepler Street, shown on title LA45086, and Maple Grove, shown on LA45343 which was united by the public highway, Maple Close, was registered by the Land Registry under title MS351603 to Maritime Housing, at 2, of the office copy of the Property Register dated February 3rd 2006, it states:

“2. (21.01.1994) A transfer of the land in this title dated 24 December 1993 made between (1) The metropolitan Borough of Sefton and (2) Maritime Housing Association Limited contains the following provision:-

2, It is agreed between the Council and the Association that any boundary structure now or hereafter constructed within 80 years of the date herein between the property herby transferred and the adjoining land of the Council are party boundary structures and are maintainable and repairable as such.”

The title map that accompanies this title is a forgery which again, like the transfer map is composed of two versions of OS SJ3386 cut and pasted together, this time, the outer section is that of OS SJ3396 dated 1984 showing the Star of the Sea junior school, and the inner section, that of OS SJ3396 dated 1969, clumsily overlaid on it which has, amongst other things, removed the pavement between Seaforth Road and 19 Lime Grove and the entire pavement from Seaforth Road and the opposite side of Lime Grove through to Maple Close from it.

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

The altered OS map SJ3396 draw by the Land Registry for registration of the land is a forged instrument under s.8. (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 as it does not depicts the presence of the party Boundary Structure 'the screen wall' and is clearly calculated to deceive.

This document also breaches s. 183 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 as the Registry did not show "due diligence" in the production of this title map and also breach of s. 2 of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

HOW DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF VEXATION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME
BELOW, APPLY TO ME ?

Heard on the papers at Procession House, London, EC4

1. On the 4 January 2002 a member of staff from Jobcentre Plus in
Dudley (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) was responding to a question about benefits received by Mrs
Hossack. The question was from solicitors handling a personal
injury claim involving Mrs Hossack. In the course of the call, the
member of staff disclosed that Mr Hossack was receiving benefits.
That disclosure was unauthorised and a breach of the Data
Protection Act.

2. Mr Hossack has been campaigning about that breach ever since.
The Department have investigated the breach, a number of times,
have admitted it, accepted responsibility for it, apologised for
it, and paid compensation to Mr Hossack for it. During the course
of his campaign, Mr Hossack has twice had the breach investigated
by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Administration (the
Ombudsman), whose recommendations the DWP have accepted and acted
upon.

3. Mr Hossack remains dissatisfied. He has engaged three firms of
solicitors at various times to act on his behalf. He has taken
counsel’s opinion. He has repeatedly threatened legal action,
though none has resulted. He has campaigned publicly, naming
individual members of DWP staff, accusing them of a variety of
criminal acts including corruption and fraud. He has leafleted
locally setting out his allegations; he has towed a trailer with
posters advertising his allegations around the town. More recently,
he has set up a website to publicise his allegations. The request
for information

4. Over the years, Mr Hossack has made many requests for
information to the Department, which have been answered to a
greater or lesser extent during the various inquiries and
voluminous correspondence generated by his campaign. One particular
issue that has concerned Mr Hossack is the identity of the employee
who made the disclosure (though in more recent correspondence to
the Tribunal, Mr Hossack asserts that he now knows the name, and in
any event is not – and never has been - interested in the identity
of the individual.)

5. One particular letter from Mr Hossack, of 12 March 2006 made
specific reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
requested “copies of the XXXX enquiry and YYYY enquiry
information”. These are two employees of the DWP who had
investigated Mr Hossack’s complaint in its early stages.

6. That request was refused on 11 May 2006 on the grounds that it
was vexatious and could therefore be refused within section 14 of
FOIA.

The complaint to the Information Commissioner

7. Mr Hossack complained about that refusal to the Information
Commissioner (IC). As part of its response to the Commissioner’s
investigation, the DWP prepared a lengthy account of the history of
the various complaints and correspondence, setting out their
analysis of why the current request should be treated as vexatious.

8. The Commissioner’s investigation was understandably protracted.
The Decision Notice, issued on 13 March 2007, found that “the
request was correctly refused as vexatious”, though it noted that
the DWP’s response had been given outside the 20 day time limit set
by the Act. No remedial action was required. The appeal to the
Tribunal

9. Mr Hossack appealed against the Decision Notice on 27 March
2007, on the ground that the Commissioner was wrong to describe his
request as vexatious. The DWP was joined as a party and directions
were given. The questions for the Tribunal

10. The legal framework is simple. Section 14 of FOIA states: (1)
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

11. The Act does not define vexatious further. The Information
Commissioner has published Awareness Guidance notes, no 22 of which
deals with vexatious and repeated requests. We found that a helpful
framework, though it is not of course binding on us. The DWP
referred us to a number of decisions dealing with vexatious in
different statutory contexts, including costs awards and vexatious
litigants. We found these interesting but not directly helpful. We
accept the DWP’s point that the consequences of a finding that a
request for information is vexatious are much less serious than a
finding of vexatious conduct in these other contexts, and therefore
the threshold for a request to be found vexatious need not be set
too high. Our context is different; and, as the IC points out in
his Guidance, it is the character of the request, which must be
considered, not the party.

12. That raises the question of how far the request must be
considered in its own terms, and how far it can be considered in
context. On its own, there is nothing in the wording or nature of
the request to suggest it could be vexatious. But there is no
reason to restrict consideration to what appears on the face of the
request, and it would be artificial to do so. Clearly, context and
history are important. To decide whether a request is vexatious
must include, for example, the effect on the recipient, and may
vary depending on who the recipient is, and when the request is
made.

13. We found the previous decision of the Information Tribunal in
Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner and London
Metropolitan University, EA/2006/0070 helpful. They considered a
number of factors in deciding that that request was vexatious:

i. There is no statutory definition for the term vexatious and its
normal use is to describe activity that is likely to cause distress
or irritation, literally to vex a person to whom it is directed.

ii. The fact that several of the questions purported to seek
information, which the Appellant clearly already possessed, and the
detailed content of which had previously been debated with the
University.

iii. The tendentious language adopted in several of the questions,
demonstrating that the Appellant’s purpose was to argue and even
harangue the University and certain of its employees and not really
to obtain information that he did not already possess.

iv. The background history between the Appellant and the University
... and the fact that the request, viewed as a whole, appeared to
us to be intended simply to reopen issues which had been disputed
several times before. Several of these factors are present in the
current appeal. We would add to the first factor that for the
request to be vexatious there must be no proper or justified cause
for it. A parking ticket may be likely to cause distress or
irritation and may vex the motorist who receives it, but, if
properly issued, should not be described as vexatious.

Evidence

14. This appeal was decided without an oral hearing. The parties
presented their evidence and submissions to us in writing. We do
not propose to set out the evidence in any detail, but having
considered all of it, we make the following findings.

15. Mr Hossack has already in one way or another during his lengthy
correspondence and the previous enquiries received the bulk, if not
all, of the information he now requests. We noted above for
example, his own statement that he now knows the name of the
employee who made the original wrongful disclosure.

16. The Department does not know with certainty who made that
disclosure, but on the evidence available, it is clear that the
identity of the individual has been known, on a balance of
probability, since soon after the first enquiries were made.

17. The Department’s initial responses to Mr Hossack were
misleading. They gave the impression that the employee involved
could not be identified. Moreover, they implied that full enquiries
had been made, when the third party, the firm of solicitors to whom
the disclosure had been made, had not been contacted.

18. Those matters were investigated and ruled on by the Ombudsman.
It was that second report, in February 2005, that lead to the
Department’s second compensation payment, making a total of £150.
We endorse the Ombudsman’s observation that “Jobcentre Plus [the
Department] could have handled your complaint better”.

19. We quote one or two examples of Mr Hossack’s correspondence,
almost at random, to give an indication of Mr Hossack’s approach:
from a letter to the Director of Jobcentre Plus, 1 April 2004: “I
have no intention at all of terminating any communication with the
Dudley Job Centre plus office, and intend to make further factual
comments in writing and verbal form. This to include leaflets given
out with the corrupt officers’ names upon them outside Job Centre
Plus on random days.” From a letter of 12 December 2005 “sent to
the list of government bodies who have become involved in this
saga.”: “My intension [sic] will also be to bring the complaint
back to local levels by naming and shaming the corrupt fraudulent
officers in my local DWP department being [two names are given] and
the corrupt data protection officer...”. Consideration and
Conclusion

20. Mr Hossack has been unwilling to let the matter rest, after the
second Ombudsman’s report, despite no new matters of any
significance having come to light since. He has relentlessly
pursued different members of the DWP staff with correspondence,
scattering his allegations of corruption broadly, and publicising
them vigorously both in the immediate locality and, through his
website, to the world. In his submission to us, Mr Hossack
explained his understanding of fraud: ”to give or provide
information that is untrue”. In this view of the world, every error
is fraudulent; and it is noticeable that Mr Hossack does not
attribute a motive, let alone any question of personal or financial
gain, to the employee who made the original disclosure, or those
who subsequently investigated it.

21. A recurrent feature of the correspondence are threats of
imminent legal action from Mr Hossack, often directed to
individuals, and couched in formal legal terms. Mr Hossack
explained to us that he meant nothing by this: “This I believe to
be a mere tool to get a response and that the threat is nothing
more than subliminal”. Another recurrent feature is the repetition
of increasing statements of financial loss which Mr Hossack
attributes to the Department’s actions in some way, rather than to
his own needlessly protracted campaign. At times Mr Hossack states
that he intends to sue to recover this money; at others, he denies
any question of financial interest.

22. Just as, over the years, Mr Hossack’s financial claims have
mounted, so has his deluded sense of the importance of the issues
at stake. For example, in a letter of 12 October 2006 to the IC’s
office: “I am afraid the matter has gone beyond the recognisable
simple mistake that was made.... . The matter concerned has now
become a matter of breach of convention of human rights Act under
loss of liberty as it is quite clear from information gained that
the conspiracy between the Ombudsman, DWP and Job Centre Plus
continues with unforgivable deceit, lies, fraud and corruption.” In
our view, far from a campaigner for truth and justice on behalf of
the public, as Mr Hossack portrays himself, he is more correctly
described as pursuing an unreasonable obsession.

23. Against that background, is Mr Hossack’s request for the
information contained in the two internal investigations vexatious?
Applying the second, third and fourth factors considered by the
Tribunal in the case of Ahilathirunayagam: (ii) Previous possession
of the information: Mr Hossack already had the substance of the 2
reports, and has debated their detailed content with the
department. (iii) Tendentious language: Mr Hossack’s request is
expressed neutrally, but the language of many of his past
communications has been tendentious, aggressive, threatening and
abusive. His purpose has been to harangue the department and its
employees, not to seek information he did not already possess. (iv)
Reopening issues: Mr Hossack endlessly wishes to debate the
circumstances of that original disclosure, each time magnifying its
importance and effects.

24. If we hesitate at all in describing the request as vexatious,
it is only because when considering the first factor, we have added
the qualification that the distress caused must be unjustified: (i)
activity that is likely to cause, without justification or proper
cause, distress or irritation: there is no doubt that Mr Hossack’s
request caused distress and irritation, but in the early stages at
least, Mr Hossack’s campaign was fuelled by the Department’s
initial misleading replies. In Mr Hossack’s view, this provides a
full justification for his subsequent and current allegation of a
corrupt cover up.

25. We reject that view. Whatever cause or justification Mr Hossack
may have had for his campaign initially, cannot begin to justify
pursuing it to the lengths he has now gone to. To continue the
campaign beyond the Ombudsman’s second report, when his complaint
had been exhaustively and externally investigated, and once the
Department had accepted the errors, apologised for them and paid
compensation, is completely unjustified and disproportionate.

26. We say that not just because of the wounding and intemperate
language which Mr Hossack uses on occasion, or the volume of his
correspondence, but because the original breach of the Data
Protection Act has lead to no discernible detrimental effects for
Mr Hossack. His privacy was certainly infringed, but he has
suffered no material loss, and has been appropriately compensated
for the invasion of privacy; and to the extent that the breach has
been publicised, that is entirely his own doing. (We have no
jurisdiction over matters of compensation, but we are not surprised
that the Ombudsman thought the relatively small sum of £150 was
appropriate.)

27. Seen in context, we have no hesitation in declaring Mr
Hossack’s request, in January 2007, vexatious. The Information
Commissioner was correct in reaching that conclusion in the
decision notice, which we uphold.

Costs

28. During the course of the appeal, Mr Hossack applied for costs
against the DWP and the IC; and the DWP applied against Mr Hossack.
The IC seeks no award. The Tribunal’s powers to award costs are set
out in Rule 29 of the Tribunal’s Enforcement Appeals rules 2005:

(1) In any appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make an
order awarding costs –

(a) Against the appellant and in favour of the Commissioner where
it considers the appeal was manifestly unreasonable;

(b) Against the Commissioner and in favour of the appellant where
it considers that the disputed decision was manifestly
unreasonable;

(c) Where it considers that a party has been responsible for
frivolous, vexatious, improper or unreasonable action, or for any
failure to comply with a direction or any delay which with due
diligence could have been avoided, against that party and in favour
of any other.

29. We take (c), the only appropriate provision for an award of
costs between the appellant and the third party, to be restricted
to action during these appeal proceedings. We have no jurisdiction
to award costs because of a party’s previous frivolous, vexatious,
improper or unreasonable action. Our finding that Mr Hossack’s
request was vexatious has no bearing on consideration of costs.

30. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the IC is groundless and
is dismissed without further consideration. His claim against the
DWP (for £200,000 incurred since 2001) is based on various grounds,
most of them outside our jurisdiction. In a minor respect, the DWP
failed to comply with Directions from the Tribunal for exchange of
documents and submissions missing a deadline by some days. Even if
we were satisfied that with due diligence this could have been
avoided (and we are not so satisfied, having regard to the
explanation provided), we would not have awarded costs for a minor
breach which has had no bearing on the overall fairness of the
process and has not affected the other parties’ ability to present
their case. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the DWP is
dismissed.

31. The DWP claim their solicitors’ costs in conducting the appeal,
some £11,680, excluding counsel’s costs. The DWP argues that
because Mr Hossack’s request was vexatious, “it follows that this
appeal is also vexatious, improper or unreasonable”. As set out
above, we reject the suggestion that the character of the request
determines the character of the appeal. It is easy to see
situations where the Tribunal may find a request vexatious, but
does so only on balance, after anxious consideration. In such a
case, an appeal could not be said to be vexatious or unreasonable.
This is not such a case; given the history and context, the request
is clearly vexatious; “the Commissioner’s decision was manifestly
correct” as the DWP argue.

32. That finding might ground an award of costs in favour of the
Commissioner under Rule 29(1)(a) on the basis that the appeal was
manifestly unreasonable, but the Commissioner seeks no such award.
It is unclear whether Rule 29(3) allows us to award the costs of an
appeal to a third party on the grounds that the appeal itself was
manifestly unreasonable, as opposed to action within the appeal.
However, even if we decided that point in the DWP’s favour, a costs
award would be discretionary, not automatic (“the tribunal may make
an order awarding costs”).

33. In exercising our discretion, we take into account that in
appeals to the Tribunal costs are the exception, not the norm. It
is important that the public should not be deterred by the threat
of costs from approaching the Tribunal. Secondly, FOIA is new law.
The definition of a vexatious request is still unsettled: we have
not, for example, adopted the IC’s definition in his Guidance Note,
though we reach the same conclusion. We have found the request
clearly vexatious, but only after considering context and history.
On its face, it is a reasonable request.

34. Thirdly, considering the facts of this particular case, there
is our finding that the DWP’s initial replies to Mr Hossack were
misleading. We do not say that that justifies his subsequent
campaign, but it does mean that the DWP are not the entirely
innocent victims of a misguided appeal. At least initially, they
contributed to the force of Mr Hossack’s campaign.

35. Fourthly, there is nothing in Mr Hossack’s conduct of the
appeal proceedings which would give rise to any award, at least
until the later stages. His submissions repeat his misguided
allegations of corruption against the DWP, but that is part and
parcel of his case.

36. However, in the final stages of the appeal, he makes an
unpleasant and personal attack on the conduct and integrity of the
solicitor conducting the case for the DWP: for example, in the
“Conclusion” submitted on 4 November 2007. Allowing for the stress
of litigation, and the irritation no doubt caused by the DWP’s
missed deadlines, this is an improper way to conduct the action.

37. Even so, considering the first four factors above, we have
decided against a costs award. However, Mr Hossack should be aware
that he has escaped an award on this occasion by the narrowest of
margins, and he may not find another Tribunal, should he pursue a
comparable appeal again, as accommodating.

38. Our decision is unanimous.

Signed Humphrey Forrest Deputy Chairman Date 18th December 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Richard Roscoe,

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