Removal Of Implied Right Of Access

D.Gill made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Waiting for an internal review by Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service of their handling of this request.

From: D.Gill

19 January 2011

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

I would please ask you to answer the following:

I am LAWFULLY ( please note I have stated LAWFULLY, as per COMMON
LAW) entitled to remove The Implied Right Of Access to my property.
Under this law, the only persons who are allowed to visit my
property are the postman, or a lost person asking for directions.
All others use an Implied Right.
If I were to serve this to the court, or agents acting on your
behalf, could I have your assurances that it would be LAWFULLY
adhered to as requested?

If not, then please supply me with your reasons and back them up
with relevant proof as to why you can ignore it.
i.e. If the law has been repealed, or a precedent set to overrule
this law, with the relevent dates of any such lawful amendment

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

20 January 2011

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

Just to clarify, to satisfy section 8 of the Freedom Of Information
Act, I require copies of any written guidelines and procedures the
court follows, along with the relevant section in law that you
follow.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Over, Darren \(ARU\)
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

21 January 2011

Freedom of Information Request FOI/68814/11

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3251
F 020 3334 2245
E [HMCS request email]

www.justice.gov.uk

21-JAN-11 Our Ref:FOI/68814/11

Dear D Gill,

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Request

Thank you for your correspondence of January 20, 2011, in which you
asked for information about Removal Of Implied Right Of Access under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) from the Ministry of Justice
(MoJ).

You will receive a response from us by February 16, 2011. Your request
has been passed to the appropriate business unit within the MoJ, and
they will write to you with their decision by this date.

The FOIA does provide a number of exemptions. A qualified exemption
requires that before relying on it we must consider the public interest
test. If the information you have requested is covered by a qualified
exemption(s) under FOIA, the Department is allowed to take longer than
20 working days to respond. This is because in such circumstances we are
required to consider the public interest issues when deciding whether or
not to disclose the information requested.

If more time is needed to consider the public interest issues under a
qualified exemption(s), we will write to you and inform you of the
revised date you can expect to receive a response to your request.

If you have any queries regarding this request please do not hesitate to
contact us. Please quote ref: FOI/68814/11 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Over
(Sent on behalf of Caroline Banjo)
Data Access and Compliance Unit

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Link to this

From: D.Gill

17 February 2011

Dear Over, Darren (ARU),

I am disappointed to note that you have failed to respond to my
request promptly as per the law.
This should have been responded to by 16th February at the latest.

HMCS of all places should surely obey the law (!)
Please could you investigate why the response has been delayed.
Many Thanks

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

23 February 2011

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

Despite my reminder of 17th February, I still await the courtesy of
an acknowledgement, or preferably a proper response to my request
for information.

I would like to remind you that even Her Majesty's Court Service is
not exempt from the law.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

24 February 2011

Dear D Gill, Thank you for your email. Please can you forward us your
original request so that I can check the progress of the request

Regards

Data Access and Compliance Unit
6TH floor 102 Petty France.
Post point 6.25
London
SW1H 9AJ
Email [email address]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

24 February 2011

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services \(CSHQ\)

25 February 2011

Thank you for your email. This does not come under the Complaints Handling
& Enquiries Team remit

Regards
HMCS

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

25 February 2011

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

On 19th January 2011, I requested information under the Freedom of
Information Act.
As yet, I still await the courtesy of a reply.
Please could you imnvestigate why the information has not been
forthcoming.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services \(CSHQ\)

25 February 2011

Thank you for your email, which has been received by the Complaint
Handling & Enquiries Team. We aim to respond to your email within 10
working days, in the event that we are unable to reply in that time, we
will let you know.

NB We do not have any access to any court records or files nor do we stock
any court forms or leaflets.

Court Information: If your query is in relation to a specific case, then
you will need to contact them direct. Information can be found by typing
in the court name at:
[1]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...

Money & Possession Claim Online (MCOL & PCOL): If you would like to issue
a claim for Money or Possession of Property you can do so 24 hours a day,
7 days a week by visiting: [2]www.moneyclaim.gov.uk or
[3]www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.

Any queries or complaints regarding MCOL or PCOL should be directed to
0845 601 5935 or via email to
[4][email address] or
[5][email address]

Traffic Enforcement Centre: Any queries or complaints regarding Statutory
Declarations should be directed to:
[6][email address] or by telephone 0845
704 5007

Forms: A selection of forms can be obtained from the HMCS website:

[7]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...

If you cannot find a specific form, please contact your local court.

Fees: Information on fees and fee remissions can be obtained from this
link: [8]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...

Civil Procedure Rules: The Civil Procedure Rules can be found at this
link: [9]http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrule...

Probate: If your query is in relation to probate, the Probate and
Inheritance Tax Helpline number 0845 30 20 900 (Monday to Friday 9am -
5pm).

Legal Advice: Please note Court staff can advise you on court procedures
and general matters such as where to go, who to see or what to expect.

Independent legal advice can be obtained from a solicitor, legal advice
agency or Citizens Advice Bureau: [10]http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk.

You can also contact Community Legal Advice for free legal advice on 0845
345 4 345 or via their website at
[11]http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/

Court of Protection: Any query relating to the Court of Protection
including forms, should be sent to:
[12][email address]

Bailiffs & Enforcement Officers: If your query relates to Bailiffs &
Enforcement Officers, you can find more information in Form EX345 at this
link:
[13]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/court...

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...
2. http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/
http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/
3. http://www.possessionclaim.gov.uk/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...
8. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...
9. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrule...
10. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
11. http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/
http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/
12. mailto:[email address]
13. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/court...

Link to this

From: Customer Services \(CSHQ\)

25 February 2011

Dear Madam,

Your request does not come under the Freedom of Information Act. Neither
does it come under the remit of
The Complaints Handling & Enquiries Team.

Regards

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

26 February 2011

Dear Data and Compliance Unit,

Please can someone take responsibility to address my request.
If this has arrived at the the incorrect department, please advise
me of the correct one.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services \(CSHQ\)

26 February 2011

Thank you for your email, which has been received by the Complaint
Handling & Enquiries Team. We aim to respond to your email within 10
working days, in the event that we are unable to reply in that time, we
will let you know.

NB We do not have any access to any court records or files nor do we stock
any court forms or leaflets.

Court Information: If your query is in relation to a specific case, then
you will need to contact them direct. Information can be found by typing
in the court name at:
[1]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...

Money & Possession Claim Online (MCOL & PCOL): If you would like to issue
a claim for Money or Possession of Property you can do so 24 hours a day,
7 days a week by visiting: [2]www.moneyclaim.gov.uk or
[3]www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.

Any queries or complaints regarding MCOL or PCOL should be directed to
0845 601 5935 or via email to
[4][email address] or
[5][email address]

Traffic Enforcement Centre: Any queries or complaints regarding Statutory
Declarations should be directed to:
[6][email address] or by telephone 0845
704 5007

Forms: A selection of forms can be obtained from the HMCS website:

[7]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...

If you cannot find a specific form, please contact your local court.

Fees: Information on fees and fee remissions can be obtained from this
link: [8]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...

Civil Procedure Rules: The Civil Procedure Rules can be found at this
link: [9]http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrule...

Probate: If your query is in relation to probate, the Probate and
Inheritance Tax Helpline number 0845 30 20 900 (Monday to Friday 9am -
5pm).

Legal Advice: Please note Court staff can advise you on court procedures
and general matters such as where to go, who to see or what to expect.

Independent legal advice can be obtained from a solicitor, legal advice
agency or Citizens Advice Bureau: [10]http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk.

You can also contact Community Legal Advice for free legal advice on 0845
345 4 345 or via their website at
[11]http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/

Court of Protection: Any query relating to the Court of Protection
including forms, should be sent to:
[12][email address]

Bailiffs & Enforcement Officers: If your query relates to Bailiffs &
Enforcement Officers, you can find more information in Form EX345 at this
link:
[13]http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/court...

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...
2. http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/
http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/
3. http://www.possessionclaim.gov.uk/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...
8. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoa...
9. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrule...
10. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
11. http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/
http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/
12. mailto:[email address]
13. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/court...

Link to this

From: Customer Services \(CSHQ\)

28 February 2011

I'm afraid I do not know who would deal with your query

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

28 February 2011

Dear Over, Darren (ARU),

I have still not received the information I requested.
It appears that the court service departments are in disarray and
showing a complete lack of courtesy.

It is disgraceful.

You are now breaking the law.
I am trying to get an internal review , but if you look at the
thread here
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...
you will see that nobody seems to have a clue.

To remind you again, it is my lawful right to be given this
information.
THE HMCS IS NOT EXEMPT !!!

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

20 May 2011

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

Please could you afford me the courtesy of letting me know the
progress of this internal review.
It has been almost three months now which I am sure is more than
adequate.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

20 June 2011

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts Service,

STILL WAITING....
NOT EVEN THE COURTESY OF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM YOU.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

21 June 2011

Dear D.Gill

I would be grateful if you could provide a copy of your original request so I can locate your case and provide you with an update.

Regards

Peter Harlow | Assistant Disclosure Specialist | Corporate Services
Data Access & Compliance Unit | Ministry of Justice | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

21 June 2011

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

The original request can be seen here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Originally made 19th January! FIVE MONTHS AGO

You will see that I have provided this link at least twice before
when I have requested an update and not received a reply.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

11 July 2011

Mr Gill,

The link doesn't open.

Regards

Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team
Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

11 July 2011

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

I cannot believe it has taken you three weeks to reply that the
link doesn't open.

(I have tried it and it opens with no problem)

Anyway, please try this link
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

It will take you to the thread relevant to the request.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

11 July 2011

Welcome to Her Majesty's Court Service

Thank you for your email, which has been received by the Complaint
Handling & Enquiries Team. We aim to respond to your email within 10-15
working days, in the event that we are unable to reply in that time, we
will let you know.

The HMCS website has been relocated to the following sites below:

o [1]www.direct.gov.uk - information and access to Court Finder, Civil
& Family matters including divorce, adoption, civil partnership
dissolution, forced marriages

o [2]www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/home - information and access
to Money & Possession Claim Online (MCOL & PCOL); Debt recovery; an
overview of court work.

o [3]www.judiciary.gov.uk - information on Practice Directions (Civil
Procedure Rules), Judgments, Minimum terms, Tariffs & Mandatory Life
sentences

o [4]www.justice.gov.uk - information and access to HMCTS Corporate
content; Xhibit; Daily Cause Lists; Film Unit, Venue Hire; Royal
Courts of Justice; County Court Bulk Centre

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/
2. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/act...
3. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
4. http://www.justice.gov.uk/

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

12 July 2011

Dear Mr Gill,

That link does no more than take me back to the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com site and again I cannot open the link. If you read the email from DACU you would have seen that it was only sent to CHET on 6 July.

Regards

Complaints Handling and Enquiries Team
Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

12 July 2011

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

The intention of the link IS to send you to the Whatdotheyknow
site, with the relevant thread.
When you click on the link, you may have to scroll to the top of
the page where you will see the original request made in January
2011.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

12 July 2011

Welcome to Her Majesty's Court Service

Thank you for your email, which has been received by the Complaint
Handling & Enquiries Team. We aim to respond to your email within 10-15
working days, in the event that we are unable to reply in that time, we
will let you know.

The HMCS website has been relocated to the following sites below:

o [1]www.direct.gov.uk - information and access to Court Finder, Civil
& Family matters including divorce, adoption, civil partnership
dissolution, forced marriages

o [2]www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/home - information and access
to Money & Possession Claim Online (MCOL & PCOL); Debt recovery; an
overview of court work.

o [3]www.judiciary.gov.uk - information on Practice Directions (Civil
Procedure Rules), Judgments, Minimum terms, Tariffs & Mandatory Life
sentences

o [4]www.justice.gov.uk - information and access to HMCTS Corporate
content; Xhibit; Daily Cause Lists; Film Unit, Venue Hire; Royal
Courts of Justice; County Court Bulk Centre

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/
2. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/act...
3. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
4. http://www.justice.gov.uk/

Link to this

Peter Offen left an annotation ( 2 August 2011)

Quote-marks I am interested in the outcome of this FoI request - any chance of a response HMCS?

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation ( 9 August 2011)

Quote-marks Same here.

I originally made the request in January.
Almost eight months ago.

Wonder why they are keeping the info quiet?

Think it's time for another reminder

Link to this

From: D.Gill

9 August 2011

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

I am STILL AWAITING the courtesy of a reply to the request made in
January and am fed up with being messed about by your ridiculously
incompetent compliance department.

I would appreciate an answer to my request forthwith.

The court service of all people should know the law.
YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT !

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

9 August 2011

Welcome to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service

Thank you for your email. We aim to respond to your email within 10-15
working days if the nature of your complaint or enquiry is in relation to
a court matter or procedure, in the event that we are unable to reply in
that time, we will let you know.

The HMCTS websites has been relocated to the following sites:

o [1]www.direct.gov.uk

o [2]www.businesslink.gov.uk

o [3]www.judiciary.gov.uk

o [4]www.justice.gov.uk

Under the home page on the justice website, you can locate the following:

. [5]Procedure Rules

. [6]Employment Tribunal

. [7]Probate Service

. [8]Court Finder

. [9]Immigration and Asylum Tribunal

. [10]Claims Management Regulation

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.direct.gov.uk/
http://www.direct.gov.uk/
2. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/
3. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/
4. http://www.justice.co.uk/
http://www.justice.gov.uk/
5. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
6. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
7. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
8. http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/H...
http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/H...
9. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/court...
10. http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/inspe...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/inspe...

Link to this

From: Stone, Benny

15 August 2011

This was our reply to you on 12 July

Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),

I am STILL AWAITING the courtesy of a reply to the request made in
January and am fed up with being messed about by your ridiculously
incompetent compliance department.

I would appreciate an answer to my request forthwith.

The court service of all people should know the law.
YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT !

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

15 August 2011

Dear Stone, Benny,

No, this is not the reply you sent on 12th July.....
It is just an exact copy of the message I sent you on 9th
August!!!!!

Please can you pass the request on to someone who knows what they
are doing.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Stone, Benny

15 August 2011

Where is the request? Re send it please

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

15 August 2011

Dear Stone, Benny,

As provided previously on 28 Feb, 21 June, 11 July AND 12 July.

YOU CLICK ON THIS LINK:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

That should take you to the thread on the whatdotheyknow website.
You then might have to scroll to the top of the page and the
request from JANUARY is there.

If the link doesnt work, then go to the website
www.whatdotheyknow.com and copy and paste the above link address
into the search bar.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (15 August 2011)

Quote-marks How can anyone have any faith in the court service, when they cannot provide an answer to the simplest of requests made in JANUARY. Almost 9 Months ago !!!

They of all people should know the law !

Link to this

Peter Offen left an annotation (27 August 2011)

Quote-marks This is a clear and straight question - please respond HMCS - or a failure to respond will be taken as acceptance that a notice given of removal of right to implied access is fully accepted as valid by HMCS and all agents?

Link to this

Neil Gilliatt left an annotation (28 August 2011)

Quote-marks D.Gill

You said:

"They of all people should know the law !"

Can I say firstly that those dealing with your FOI request must be p*ss taking cretins, and secondly:

Unfortunately it seems that HMCS do not know the Law, nor do they have any interest in it.

Like the DVLA, Child Support Agency and UK Border Agency to name a few, they are set up by the government to create a revenue stream. HMCS is the profit making, business side of the operation that ensures money is made out of people or organisations wanting to use their services.

I wonder if you made the same observation as me, regarding the HMCS staff supposedly dealing with this FOI? – that they're more likely to be pseudonyms.

What do you think? Darren Over, Caroline Banjo and Benny Stone can not all be real names can they?

Link to this

Mark Goodge left an annotation (29 August 2011)

Quote-marks Why on earth would anyone think that the Court Service is the right place to ask a question about the law? Especially when it's a stupid question to begin with.

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (29 August 2011)

Quote-marks I cant see anything wrong with the request...
Please elaborate on your points???

Link to this

From: D.Gill

8 October 2011

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts Service,

I still await the courtesy of a reply to my request from January .

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

3 November 2011

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

I Still await a proper response this Freedom Of Information Request
request originally made in January 2011.
This is totally unacceptable.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Balding, Kate
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

9 November 2011

Dear Mr Gill,

Thank you for your e-mail below, I have visited the link to this request on WhatDoTheyKnow and I would like to apologise for the handling of your correspondence.

You requested the following information:

I am LAWFULLY ( please note I have stated LAWFULLY, as per COMMON
LAW) entitled to remove The Implied Right Of Access to my property.
Under this law, the only persons who are allowed to visit my
property are the postman, or a lost person asking for directions.
All others use an Implied Right.
If I were to serve this to the court, or agents acting on your
behalf, could I have your assurances that it would be LAWFULLY
adhered to as requested?

If not, then please supply me with your reasons and back them up
with relevant proof as to why you can ignore it.
i.e. If the law has been repealed, or a precedent set to overrule
this law, with the relevent dates of any such lawful amendment

It may be helpful if I explain that your correspondence did not ask for recorded information and as such was not processed in line with the Freedom of Information Act. However, we did pass your correspondence to the HMCS Customer Service team to address. As such, the Data Access and Compliance Unit are unable to assist you in responding to your original correspondence.

I noticed from the e-mail chain that HMCS Customer Services were unable to assist with your query. As your query relates to your rights under the law, I have copied in our general queries team who will take your correspondence forward with the appropriate area of the business.

I hope this helps to clarify matters for you and again, I apologise for the length of time taken to receive an answer.

Best Wishes
Kate

Kate Balding|Business Coordinator

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|6th Floor|Post Point 6.23
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

9 November 2011

Dear Balding, Kate,

Many thanks for the update on my request and I look forward to a
reply from the relevant department.
I accept that possibly my original request was not worded as
clearly as it could have been and I apologise for that, although it
is disappointing that it has taken ten months to be advised of
this.
Also, because the request has not been allocated to just one person
(I think you are the sixth), there has been unnecessary confusion.

Therefore, please allow me to rephrase my request:

In the last six years, please could you tell me of any "Removal of
Implied Rights of Access" correspondence that has been received by
HMCS and if so, what were the outcomes.
I.e. Were the notices complied with by HMCS, or if they were not,
then the reasons for any non-compliance.

Many thanks,

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

17 December 2011

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

An update on the progress of this would be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

[Name removed] left an annotation (11 February 2012)

Quote-marks Is still this continuing?

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (11 February 2012)

Quote-marks As they have totally ignored this one, I wrote a revised request HERE: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

As you can see , they are ignoring this one too.

What have they got to hide?

Link to this

Malcom Briggs left an annotation (24 February 2012)

Quote-marks Just take it up with the ICO.

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (24 February 2012)

Quote-marks I have referred this to the ICO and they have responded to say they will investigate.
Hopefully we will get an answer .

Link to this

ivanataylor left an annotation (10 March 2012)

Quote-marks I would also appreciate an intelligent and lawful answer to this question, are we no nearer.

I assume that once a notice is posted, on private property, clearly for all to see, that due notice has been given removing implied rights of access for agents and principles; and unless a qualified authority can state yay or nay having been given adequate time to do so, either " it is not lawful to remove implied rights of access", or that the notice it is lawful and enforcable.

Why is this question not yet answered? Could it be that the Courts do not want this information to be common knowledge, and the use of such notices to become common practice under common law? If so I wonder why this might be? And on what lawful standing?

Just a simple yes or no would no doubt suffice, or am I mistaken? Because no answer is forthcoming I am now assuming that my notices are in fact lawful and can if necessary, ie if a Tort is caused due to a trespass, can be enforced in The Common law of this land England, and can be enforced via a commercial lien.

I do hope we get an answer to this without further delay to clarify our position as kings and Queens of our own respective Castles, our homes.

Thank you for asking this question, the answer of which will be beneficial to all interested parties. I have to say that I am amazed that Her Majesty's Courts services seem unable or unwilling to give an answer.

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (10 March 2012)

Quote-marks Even my revised request has been ignored..

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

I then made a FOI to the ICO :

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ca...

Still appears that HMCS think they are exempt.

I think we know the answer to the Withdrawal of Implied Right of Access (WOIRA) Request.

Unfortunately this just proves how corrupt the HMCS is, because if it were "no" then they would have to provide the law that they rely on to disregard the WOIRA notice, but obviously there is no such law that allows them to overrule it otherwise they would have answered a long time ago.

Link to this

From: D.Gill

10 March 2012

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Courts
and the Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Removal Of
Implied Right Of Access'.

Because the original FOI request has remained unanswered for
FOURTEEN MONTHS.

Also all my requests for an internal review have been IGNORED.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Yours faithfully,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: D.Gill

19 April 2012

Dear Balding, Kate,

Please can you afford me the courtesy of a response to the internal
review?

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

30 April 2012

Dear Mr Gill,

Firstly, apologies for the delay responding to your e-mail below. As explained in earlier correspondence, your query did not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and was being treated as Official Correspondence. As such, you are not entitled to an Internal Review.

However, I have located the business unit responsible for processing your request and I have copied them into this e-mail - please contact them directly if you wish to follow up this e-mail.

Best Wishes
Kate

Kate Balding|Business Coordinator

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

9 June 2012

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Sorry for the delay, but thank you for your reply.

Please could you give the reasons when you state that the query did
not fall under the Freedom of Information regime.
Surely it is a straightforward information request.

I am thinking that you do not wish me to have the information and
using this as an excuse.

As a taxpayer and therefore a part owner of HMCS, I am entitled to
this information.

Therefore, I am asking agin for you to comply

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

11 June 2012

Dear Mr Gill,

The reason being that your query could be best dealt with outside of the Freedom of Information Act. Your enquiry poses questions and asks for opinions and as such would need to be dealt with by the relevant policy area in MoJ.

I have copied the Ministerial Correspondence Unit into this e-mail who will be responsible for routing your request to the appropriate area of the department. They can be contacted via the contact details in the following link: http://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/moj#gen should you wish to follow up this e-mail.

Best Wishes
Kate

Kate Balding|Business Coordinator

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: D.Gill

13 June 2012

Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,

Thank You for your reply.
You are correct in saying that my original request made on 19th
January 2011 contained questions, which is why on the 20th January
2011, I made a clarification to the original request so as to
satisfy section 8 of the FOI act.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Why was this not mentioned well before now?
We are now in JUNE 2012, SEVENTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE REQUEST WAS
MADE.
I am fed up being fobbed off all this time byyourself and numerous
HMCS employees.

Everyone else only gets 40 days to respond.
Just because you are HMCS, You are not exempt. The law applies to
you equally.

Yours sincerely,

D.Gill

Link to this

kenneth priestley left an annotation (10 January 2013)

Quote-marks They are having a laugh, this will never be answered on here as to do so this would become common knowledge!!!! you will be lucky if they even accept that they have received it.
Anything they dont like seems to vanish or get covered up.
The master does not want the puppet to cut the strings ;)

Link to this

Mark Giblin left an annotation (15 January 2013)

Quote-marks I would take this matter to a solicitor to give you an answer.

The courts service is about enforcement of law and not about your rights.

You notice that the one correspondent referrers to the relevant area of business, which is exactly what the courts service is, a system designed to earn money and not uphold your rights.

It would be interesting if they do eventually answer your question as they do know the legislation and are ready to quote it if they want to without all these shenanigans, they clearly don't want to answer the question because it could severely impact on their own bailiffs visiting properties to recover goods and chattels.

Good luck with it because to me its looking like you would have more success sweeping water up a hill with a garden rake.

Ciao.

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (15 January 2013)

Quote-marks If it were the case that the Withdrawal of Implied Right of Access was not valid, they would have taken great delight in answering well before now, along with the relevant case law that allows it to be overruled.

I think we can therefore conclude that by their reluctance to do this, we know the answer.

Have also reported HMCS non-compliance to this request to the ICO who have also ignored my complaint.

That only confirms my suspicions even more ..

Link to this

P Jones left an annotation (12 March 2013)

Quote-marks Mr Gill,

When I first read this FOI request, I recall (many months ago) being left with a strong feeling of irritation and frustration at 'their' complete reluctance to give you an answer.

Many months later, in a state of far greater knowledge, I read it again (plus its updates and annotations) and I am left with a rather lovely feeling of empowerment and motivation at 'their' complete reluctance to give you an answer.

Namaste :)

Link to this

Peter: Drabble left an annotation (17 March 2013)

Quote-marks Dear HMCS,

You are public servants and therefore public trustees. We THE PUBLIC are the beneficiaries (shareholders) and we DEMAND an answer.

Now please address the FoI request in good faith.

Link to this

ambrose left an annotation (18 March 2013)

Quote-marks There seems to be a possibility you have a) asked for something under FOI that does not fall under the FOI. b) asked the wrong authority.
with rgeards a) see here http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/off...

specifically: "•You can ask for any information you think a public authority may hold. The right only covers recorded information which includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.
•Your request can be in the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, but the authority does not have to answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded."
It seems you are asking for an opinion or interpretation of the law, not somethign that is written down and recorded within any specific public body's records/files.

therefore under FOI the courts service could say that this is not a valid FOI request.
Of course, you are still entitled to make an enquiry of the relevant body, of what the law is or your legal stand point. but to whom, and whether they would ever make such a judgement or advise, is uncertain. if the authority responsible for legislation and interpretation of the law provided judgements and advice to the public direct for free and in a timely manner, then presumably there would be few or no lawyers around.

for b) see above. you could try contacting OfCom, or Citizens Advice Bureau for that matter. Either way i dont think this line of enquiry will yield results for the reasons outlined above. My suggestion is that if you want to continue to gain certainty that you can refuse the right to enter to TV licensing you engage a solicitor and get a qualified legal opinion. which of course means paying money.

Link to this

Paul Smithers left an annotation (18 March 2013)

Quote-marks How about the idea that the removal of implied right to access is correct - I have a letter from the TV licence bunch confirming that they accept my request that they do not call at my home.It was not a friendly request from me, it was an instruction. Job done.

Link to this

Tania: of the Cocking Family left an annotation (19 March 2013)

Quote-marks TV licensing have also agreed that my Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access is valid, but that they retain the right to detect using 'other means'. Job done. No9t allowed to enter onto my private land.

Link to this

P Jones left an annotation (19 March 2013)

Quote-marks As per the previous two annotations (that do not advocate paying for legal service) I have the same correspondence from TVL, owned by BBC.

Paul S - I would say your idea is more than an idea. It is law. Tania - If they enter on to your property after your withdrawal, they commit civil trespass, which not only gives you a strong case for civil action but it also deems any alleged evidence they might have inadmissible.

I have written to them (BBC), 'withdrawing' their implied right of access to my property, as is my right under common law. Their response was to treat my instruction as a 'wish', and to receive my instruction as a complaint, adding it to their complaints process.

They go on to state 'We won't visit you, although we reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment.' So they comply with my instruction (alleged birthday wish) but they choose to confirm their compliance by stating 'We won't visit you.'

Also, the BBC chooses to adopt a period of two years from the date they have their implied right of access withdrawn from a property, to when they begin a process of trying to confirm whether or not said property is still owned/occupied by those that made the withdrawal. This seems to be BBC policy now, as they now state this on their response literature.

If they are then either informed that there has been no change in owner/occupier of said property, or their request for 'updated information' is not replied to, then the same common law applies, and they will commit civil trespass if they enter onto the property.

In light of the fact, (please see original question by D Gill) that, Lawfully, as per Common Law, an individual has the right to withdraw The Implied Right Of Access to their property, it seems very ODD that the bbc HAVE to confirm if this has changed before they are able to use any subsequent statute law in order to enforce their policy. But whatdoIknow? :)

Peace.

Link to this

Mr Licky left an annotation ( 5 June 2013)

Quote-marks The reason they wont give you the information is because they (HMCS) do not want this public. It is a known fact that any implied rights of access notice served or displayed by a household/tenant/other is a legal document pertaining to its very title. The courts skirt around this matter and just want you to go away and not ask. Keep the pressure on, because if they finally have to admit defeat and allow the info out into the public domain (it already is in some ways) then this will open floodgates and completely upend their "rule with an iron bar" methods of justice. Their non confirmation and non denial speaks volumes to me. It should be ringing your alarm bells to.

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation ( 5 June 2013)

Quote-marks Hi Mr Licky.

Like you, I have come to the conclusion that as they have avoided answering for so long, then in fact the WOIRA is valid.
Had it not been, they would have answered long ago.

I have reported them to the ICO, but even they ignored it.
This sets more alarm bells ringing, doesn't it.

I am hoping that another user might send a new request to HMCS and hopefully be more successful in obtaining the info.

I am pretty sure that HMCS reject it ,as they will just answer that the matter has been dealt with, (although it hasn't really been answered.)

Regards,

D. Gill

Link to this

Mr Licky left an annotation ( 6 June 2013)

Quote-marks I will write to them for you

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation ( 6 June 2013)

Quote-marks Thanks Mr Licky.

Please let me know when you send your request and if possible provide a link so I can follow the progress.

Many Thanks and Good Luck.

D Gill

Link to this

Mark Giblin left an annotation (10 June 2013)

Quote-marks Implied Right of Access is a part of legislation that deals with such items as shared drive ways, services like sewerage and water as well as electricity that runs across private properties and land owned by someone else.

You can not remove a "Right of way" by simply posting a notice to that effect, you have a proper legal process to go through and while it might seem appealing to write such nonsense in a letter or on a notice because it looks and sounds legitimate, it however is complete bunk because you can not remove a right of way nor stop anyone from coming to your door to conduct legitimate business.

As for TV Licencing you only need tell them you have no need for a licence, end of story. Instead of wasting energy in fighting a system, use the system to fight itself and stop relying on this Freeman rubbish as it in itself has no legal basis and we do not live under admiralty law, we live under case law AKA common law, so how can you restore something that we already live under?

Here, sign this... http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petition... which is a petition to have section 363of the telecommunications act 2003 revoked and have the BBC encode all its channels so that people can use their TV sets ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003... ) because you currently need a TV licence to view ANY current TV broadcast, even by cable and Satellite.

You do not need a licence for games consoles, DVD players or using a TV Catch up viewer...

Does this answer the question for the person posting the request?

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (10 June 2013)

Quote-marks Mark Giblin,

Thanks for taking the time to add an annotation.

Firstly, may I point out that at no time in my FOI request did I make any reference to TV Licencing.

Your comments are interesting, but please could you provide me with the case law you refer to that allows anyone to attend my property and why I am unable to revoke any implied permission?
Surely if I own land then I can choose who can and cannot come onto that land??

A link to this information would be good.
Many thanks,
D. Gill

Link to this

D.Gill left an annotation (10 June 2013)

Quote-marks ......
In addition to the above.

I think you will find that Legal and Lawful are two completely different things.

Regards,
D. Gill

Link to this

Mark Giblin left an annotation (10 June 2013)

Quote-marks all you have to do is search the internet filtering on legislation.gov.uk to find that you have various acts that covert different aspects of access and entry.

These can exist in the Land Act 1820 which has been subjected to allot of delegated legislation, Law of Property Act 1925 and other acts that exist that give certain rights of access such as energy suppliers and water suppliers.

Simply search for this information and you can find it.

Link to this

kenneth priestley left an annotation (11 June 2013)

Quote-marks Over 2 years now and it seems that neither the BBC or the freedom of information wish to persue the answer to the question put before them, this lack of information and action speaks volumes and they are in breach of the same legal laws that they use to use against us.

Link to this

Mark Giblin left an annotation (22 November 2013)

Quote-marks The thing to remember is that the Courts are the wrong department to be asking for this information.

Anyone irrespective of their intentions has the right to access your property for legitimate business and if asked to leave, have to honor that request otherwise they are trespassing and the only person that can remove a person trespassing is a police officer, if the person refuses to leave when asked to do so by a police officer, can be escorted or arrested and removed from your property.

So when Mr TV Licence man rolls up to your door and knocks, you only need say I have no need of a licence and ask them to please leave your property.

As for writing to the BBC, you only need do the same, declare you have no need for a TV Licence and that any set you own is used for a games console or watching DVD's on.

Writing this removal of implied right of access is Gobldegook and Gibberish, what you are doing and the BBC acknowledges rather than fighting it is that you are asking them to cease and desist from harassing you for something you no longer need.

So the crux of this matter relates to civil law, legislation on access and rights of way, land ownership and has nothing to do with the HMCTS or as I like to put it, you're barking up the wrong lamp post.

Link to this

kenneth priestley left an annotation (23 November 2013)

Quote-marks The key word you have used several times is PERSON, please investigate that word and several others as per the meaning in legalese (legal terms)
You can remove implied right of access prior, thus saving the knock at the door
NOTICE SERVED, thus breach of notice has a cost.... CONTRACT.
It works, i have done this already and received letters confirming a company, person, agent or individual will not be knocking at my door.

Link to this

tracy sears left an annotation (10 March 2014)

Quote-marks Hmm your questions to the HMCTS is wrong.

I don't need to go into detail about it suffice to say you are not requesting documents. You are asking a legal question, this can easily be answered by an independent lawyer.

Solution for you if you want to pursue it is Email the Treasury Solicitors, they are the lawyers for the government, they have the answers waiting for you.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service only:

Follow this request

There are 18 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?