Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988

fred robinson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Land Registry

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

Waiting for an internal review by Land Registry of their handling of this request.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that the Registries officers are subject to S. 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the malicious Communications Act 1988.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail of 11 November.

We are looking into the point you have raised and will be in touch with
you again as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robertson
Customer Service Manager
Land Registry Head Office
Lincoln's Inn Fields
London WC2A 3PH

DX1098 London/Chancery Lane

Telephone: 020 7166 4480
Fax: 020 7166 4362
GTN: 7 3504 4480

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Robinson

Please find attached my response to your FOI request received on 11
November by Land Registry.

I politely request that if you are placing this response on the
'whatdotheyknow.com' website that my name is withheld.

<<Robinson_261108.dot>> <<Civil_Service_Values.doc>>

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Direct Line: 020 7166 4442
GTN: 7 3504 4442
Email: [email address]
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH
P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?
....................................................................................................................................................................................

From: fred robinson [[FOI #4049 email]]
Posted At: 11 November 2008 10:38
Conversation: Freedom of Information request - Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of
the Malicious Communications Act 1988
Posted To: Inbox

Subject: Freedom of Information request - Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the
Malicious Communications Act 1988
This enquiry is being considered by Andrew and Sushma - 11 Nov 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you confirm or deny that the Registries officers are subject
to S. 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the malicious Communications Act 1988.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

Are you confirming or denying my FOI request.

fred robinson

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Robinson

In case you were unable to access the attachment to their reply - it stated:

"[The Civil Service Code] states that there is a duty to `comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice'. Therefore Land Registry staff must comply with the requirements of the Malicious Communications Act 1988."

Hope this helps

Regards,
Alex

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Alex Skane

Under certain circumstances public servants have immunity to prosecution for their defaults, one such instance is when they act in "good faith" in their dealings with the public or others and base their communications on the words of others, another instance is when they are ordered or expected to take a certain line by either their own superiors line, or the line directed by some other controlling mind.

This information is known to the government departments legal advisors, and those giving faulty information may fall under the protection of a statutory defence as they could argue that they were not the font of the information.

There is also the concept of "group think" to be considered.

To decide that any particular person or department will or will not have the benefit of such a defence and be liable under the Act, it requires that the legal status of the people giving information is clarified. This information is not on the Internet.

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

I would like to refer to my letter to you of 27 November and the Civil Service code. I confirm that "Land Registry staff must comply with the requirements of the Malicious Communications Act 1988".

I politely request that if you are placing this response on the 'whatdotheyknow.com' website that my name is withheld.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

I trust that the answer is that the Registry staff have no immunuty to prosecution for breaching the Malicious Communications Act and are totally responsibe as individules for the communications they make to the public and they are deemed to have constructive knowledge of the true facts they communicate, if this is so please confirm this is the case.

I trust you knew from the information provided by the site that, prior to submitting your message to me that your name would appear on the site and is something I, unlike yourself, have no control over.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

As previously explained under the Civil Service Code, Land Registry staff have a duty to comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice. There is nothing more I can add to my response.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I did not ask if the Registries staff had to"uphold the Administration of Justice" as this appears to be the function of the Ministry of Justice.

I repeat, I trust you are confirming that the Offices of the Registry are subject to - without any qualification by yourself - action against them under the Malicious Communications Act when they make false and malicious statement in the course of their duties.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

I have nothing to add to the previous replies.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I will take it that you confirm that the Registries officers are unconditionally liable under the Act for their communications with me, and are fully aware of the legal consequences of this correspondence. I rely on that confirmation as a fact in the future.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

With regard to the above. I have now been sent a letter from a Registry lawyer based in Wales stating:

"The Member of the Land Registry staff who wrote to you on 9 April 2003...was relying on her own interpretation of the historical mapping detail, as opposed to information provided by the local authority."

I now request an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Your email requesting an internal review of your Freedom of Information
request has been passed to one of our lawyers for consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH
P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?
.............................................................................................................................................................................

From: fred robinson [[FOI #4049 email]]
Sent: 18 December 2008 14:02
To: Miles, Gill
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Section 1
(1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988

Dear Miles, Gill,

With regard to the above. I have now been sent a letter from a
Registry lawyer based in Wales stating:

"The Member of the Land Registry staff who wrote to you on 9 April
2003...was relying on her own interpretation of the historical
mapping detail, as opposed to information provided by the local
authority."

I now request an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

I am presently away from the office until Monday 5 January 2009.

If you do need to speak to someone in my absence please redirect your
concerns as follows:

Data Protection queries should be forwarded to Jane Allen at Croydon on
0208 388 3339

Freedom of Information queries should be forwarded to Sushma Acharya at
Harrow on 0208 235 6334

And general queries should be referred to Valerie Knight at Head Office on
0207 166 4376

Many thanks.
Regards,
Gill

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Freedom of Information Good Practice Guidance No. 5

Time limits on carrying out internal reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement

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

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

More information

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

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

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

YOUR DOWNLOADS WERE:

Download original attachment
Attachment to FOI request 'Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988' (HTML version)

Date 26 November 2008
Your Ref
Our Ref

Land Registry
Head Office
32 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London
WC2A 3PH
Tel 020 7917 8888

Fax 020 7955 0110

Yours sincerely,

AND

Annex 1 - Civil Service Values

1. The Civil Service is an integral and key part of the government of the United Kingdom1. It supports the Government of the day in developing and implementing its policies, and in delivering public services. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament2.

2. As a civil servant, you are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. In this Code:

• ‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests;

• ‘honesty’ is being truthful and open;

• ‘objectivity’ is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence; and

• ‘impartiality’ is acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well Governments of different political persuasions.

3. These core values support good government and ensure the achievement of the highest possible standards in all that the Civil Service does. This in turn helps the Civil Service to gain and retain the respect of Ministers, Parliament, the public and its customers.

4. This Code3 sets out the standards of behaviour expected of you and all other civil servants. These are based on the core values. Individual departments may also have their own separate mission and values statements based on the core values, including the standards of behaviour expected of you when you deal with your colleagues.

Standards of behaviour

Integrity

5. You must:

• fulfil your duties and obligations responsibly;

• always act in a way that is professional4 and that deserves and retains the confidence of all those with whom you have dealings;

• make sure public money and other resources are used properly and efficiently;

• deal with the public and their affairs fairly, efficiently, promptly, effectively and sensitively, to the best of your ability;

• handle information as openly as possible within the legal framework; and

• comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.

6. You must not:

• misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others;

• accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone which might reasonably be seen to compromise your personal judgement or integrity; or

• disclose official information without authority. This duty continues to apply after you leave the Civil Service.

Honesty

7. You must:

• set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible; and

• use resources only for the authorised public purposes for which they are provided.

8. You must not:

• deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament or others; or

• be influenced by improper pressures from others or the prospect of personal gain.

Objectivity

9. You must:

• provide information and advice, including advice to Ministers, on the basis of the evidence, and accurately present the options and facts;

• take decisions on the merits of the case; and

• take due account of expert and professional advice.

10. You must not:

• ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions; or

• frustrate the implementation of policies once decisions are taken by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from those decisions.

Impartiality

11. You must:

• carry out your responsibilities in a way that is fair, just and equitable and reflects the Civil Service commitment to equality and diversity.

12. You must not:

• act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests.

Political Impartiality

13. You must:

• serve the Government, whatever its political persuasion, to the best of your ability in a way which maintains political impartiality and is in line with the requirements of this Code, no matter what your own political beliefs are;

• act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers, while at the same time ensuring that you will be able to establish the same relationship with those whom you may be required to serve in some future Government; and

• comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your political activities.

14. You must not:

• act in a way that is determined by party political considerations, or use official resources for party political purposes; or

• allow your personal political views to determine any advice you give or your actions.

Rights and responsibilities

15. Your department or agency has a duty to make you aware of this Code and its values. If you believe that you are being required to act in a way which conflicts with this Code, your department or agency must consider your concern, and make sure that you are not penalised for raising it.

16. If you have a concern, you should start by talking to your line manager or someone else in your line management chain. If for any reason you would find this difficult, you should raise the matter with your department’s nominated officers who have been appointed to advise staff on the Code.

17. If you become aware of actions by others which you believe conflict with this Code you should report this to your line manager or someone else in your line management chain; alternatively you may wish to seek advice from your nominated officer. You should report evidence of criminal or unlawful activity to the police or other appropriate authorities.

18. If you have raised a matter covered in paragraphs 15 to 17, in accordance with the relevant procedures5, and do not receive what you consider to be a reasonable response, you may report the matter to the Civil Service Commissioners6. The Commissioners will also consider taking a complaint direct. Their address is:

3rd Floor, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.
Tel: 020 7276 2613
email: [email address]

If the matter cannot be resolved using the procedures set out above, and you feel you cannot carry out the instructions you have been given, you will have to resign from the Civil Service.

19. This Code is part of the contractual relationship between you and your employer. It sets out the high standards of behaviour expected of you which follow from your position in public and national life as a civil servant. You can take pride in living up to these values.

June 2006

I TRUST THAT THIS RESPONSE CONFIRMS THAT INDIVIDUAL CIVIL SERVANTS AS WELL AS THE REST OF US, ARE SUBJECT TO THE MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR BREACHES OF IT BY COMPLAINT TO THE RELATIVE AUTHORITIES ?

IS THERE A REASON FOR NOT GIVING ME THE E MAIL ADDRESS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AND IF NOT WILL YOU NOW PROVIDED IT TO ME.

fred robinson

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

The xxx@xxx is the WhatDoTheyKnow software hiding email addresses to prevent spam (see http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about... ). The email address in the attachment is published on this web page http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/iam/codes...

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

My email of 22 December 2008 explained to you that your request for an internal review had been passed to one of our lawyers for consideration. Land Registry endeavours to respond to internal reviews within 20 working days, which in your case means by 19 January 2009.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I trust that your e-mail below:

"My email of 22 December 2008 explained to you that your request for an internal review had been passed to one of our lawyers for consideration. Land Registry endeavours to respond to internal reviews within 20 working days, which in your case means by 19 January 2009.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office,
Lincoln's Inn Fields
WC2A 3PH"

means you are to have your lawyers answer my FOI request by means of an internal review ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Yes that is correct.

Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear MILES GILL

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR LAWYERS RESPONSE:

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear MILES GILL

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF APRIL 10TH 2003

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

LETTER TO SEFTONS MR HUFF MAY 25TH 2003

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

LETTER TO MR HUFF JUNE 13TH 2003

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

The Planning Department between September 1999 and the present.

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

The Housing Department between December 2001 and December 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Aon/Rollin Hudig Hall.

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

RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM - INFORMATION COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Westcott-Rudd, Mike, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

I am writing to you following your emails requesting an internal review
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act about land in Seaforth
registered on OS SJ3386 between 1898 and 1966.

I have reviewed your request and I have nothing further to add to Mr
Robertson's reply to you of 4 December 2008. I do not believe your request
falls under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act because the
information you want is all available through 'business as usual' under
the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003.

Your requests have been completed within the permitted timescale, which in
your case was by 23 January 2009.

In my view this completes the matter. I do not believe that this matter
falls under the provisions of the Freedom Of Information Act, but if you
disagree you can apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Please note Land Registry will not enter into any further correspondence
about this request and will consider it a repeated request under Section
14. The matter is now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Westcott Rudd
Head of Corporate Legal Services
Head Office, Room 118
Tel: 020 7166 4337
GTN: 7-3504 4337
Fax: 020 7166 4307

................................................................................................................................................................................

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Westcott-Rudd, Mike,

I will take it that you confirm that the Registries officers are
unconditionally liable under the Act for their communications with
me, and are fully aware of the legal consequences of this
correspondence. I rely on that confirmation as a fact in the
future.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Westcott-Rudd, Mike, Land Registry

Dear Fred Robinson

Thank you for this. I have nothing to add to what has previously been said by others from Land Registry on this issue.

Mike Westcott Rudd
Head of Corporate Legal Services
Head Office, Room 118
Tel: 020 7166 4337
GTN: 7-3504 4337
Fax: 020 7166 4307

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Westcott-Rudd, Mike,

MY FOI REQUEST:

Will you confirm or deny that the Registries officers are subject
to S. 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the malicious Communications Act 1988.

YOUR RESPONSE"

Thank you for this. I have nothing to add to what has previously been said by others from Land Registry on this issue.

Mike Westcott Rudd
Head of Corporate Legal Services

I DO NOT SEE AN ANSWER TO MY FOI REQUEST, ARE YOU REFUSING TO GIVE ONE ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Ormerod left an annotation ()

You can't see a response to your question? How about the part of his email of 1st December, where he says:

'I confirm that "Land Registry staff must comply with the requirements of the Malicious Communications Act 1988".'

Stop being such a time-waster, Fred.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

DEAR MR ORMEROD

HOW VERY ASTUTE

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Robinson

Please find attached a reply to your request for an internal review about:

Freedom of Information request - Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious
Communications Act 1988

<<Robinson_sushma_190109.doc>>

I have sent it to you on behalf of our lawyer.

Regards,
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head Office, Lincoln's Inn Fields WC2A 3PH
P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Ms Ahahara

YOUR DOWNLOAD:

Dear Mr. Robinson
Section 1(1)(a) (iii)of the Malicious Communications Act 1998

I refer to the email dated 22 December 2008 from our Freedom of Information Officer (‘FOI Officer’) confirming that your request for an internal review had been passed to a lawyer.

The matter was referred to me. I am one of the lawyers in Corporate Legal Services, which is responsible for dealing with issues arising under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOI’). I am based at the Harrow Sub-Office.

In your email of 11 November 2008 you enquired whether Land Registry Officers are subject to section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I note that our FOI Officer replied on 26 November 2008 and provided you with information confirming that under the Civil Service Code, Land Registry Staff have a duty to comply with the law and up hold the administration of justice. This has been further confirmed in subsequent emails. The FOI officer also provided you with the Civil Service Code in this respect.

I am aware that you have been in and are in correspondence with various Land Registry colleagues in relation to your matter over a number of years. I do not intend to re-open any of the issues or matters, which have been the subject of on-going correspondence between you and Land Registry colleagues nor review these aspects. The information you have sought is available under the Land Registration Act 2002 and Land Registration Rules 2003. I do not believe that such request would fall under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 nor has any information been withheld.

I am also aware that Mr. Westcott Rudd has already undertaken one review in respect of correspondence, which was initially the responsibility of Mr Robertson. You have already received a reply on this.

My review is therefore limited to the letter of 9 April 2003 in the context of the section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I note that you had an issue with the word ‘attached’, which was used in the letter of 9 April 2003. A lawyer from our Wales Office c clarified the position in letters dated 23 June 2008 and more recently in the letter to you dated15 December 2008. In relation to this, I do not consider that there has been a refusal to provide you with information but to clarify the meaning in that letter. The lawyer from the Wales office has given you his view that the writer of the 2003 letter was ‘relying on her own interpretation of the historical mapping detail’. I do not consider that there has been any refusal to provide information.

Having considered the letter, it is my view that the information did not convey information, which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. The purpose of the Malicious Communications Act was to create an offence which would penalise the sending or delivering of poison pen letters, which are grossly offensive or indecent, a threat or intended to cause distress or anxiety ,for example, stating in a letter that a relation is dead when that writer knows that such a statement is false.

I do not consider that the writer of the 2003 letter had such intent but was trying to be helpful in providing information and assistance in relation to your enquiry.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 gave effect to The Law Commission Report on Poison-Pen Letters No 147 (1985). The Report states that in the Law Commission’s view it would be unacceptable to penalise communication containing true statement which were not grossly offensive or indecent or threatening in character even if the purpose was to cause anxiety or distress. As stated the writer of the 2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own view. I accept that this should have been made clear in the letter. I do not consider that there was any intent to cause anxiety or distress.

In my view this completes the review.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioners Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

IS THE ANSWER TO MY FOI REQUEST:

"Land Registry Staff have a duty to comply with the law and up hold the administration of justice."

MEANING THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE LAW AND ALSO HAVE AN OVERRIDING OBLIGATION UNDER THE CIVIL SERVANT CODE TO UPHOLD THE "ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT RESERVATION " BY ONLY PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION TO THE PUBLIC WHICH CAN BE RELIED ON IN LAW, I.E. DURING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ?, OR DOES IT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE ?

I NOTE YOU STATE THAT YOU WILL NOT 'REVISIT' PAST MATTERS AND THEN ADDRESS PAST MATTERS WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE WORD "ATTACHED" WHEN THE WORD "ATTACHED IS NOT PART OF MY FOI REQUEST ?

"ATTACHED" CLEARLY HAS ITS OWN MEANING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, IN FACT AND IN LAW.

I REMIND YOU, AS A LAWYER, THAT YOU CANNOT SET THE STAGE FOR A STATUTORY DEFENCE IN AN FOI REQUEST - "As stated the writer of the 2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own view" - AS EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PAID TO GIVE THEIR OWN VIEW REGARDING MATTERS OF FACT ON BEHALF OF THEIR EMPLOYERS UNLESS INSTRUCTED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS TO DO SO.

I WON'T INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE BY REFERRING YOU TO THE RELATIVE ACTS AND CASE LAW, OF WHICH THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE BUT I WILL RELY ON YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT YOU TELL ME.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

I REFER YOU TO THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002

124 Improper alteration of the Register

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

125 Privilege against self-incrimination

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

I am presently away from the office until Tuesday 27 January 2009.

If you do need to speak to someone in my absence please redirect your
concerns as follows:

Data Protection queries should be forwarded to Jane Allen at Croydon on
0208 388 3339

Freedom of Information queries should be forwarded to Sushma Acharya at
Harrow on 0208 235 6334

And general queries should be referred to Valerie Knight at Head Office on
0207 166 4376

Many thanks.
Regards,
Gill

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

OK

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Mr Ormerod left an annotation ()

Fred, why do you persist in posting replies to automatically-generated notification emails? It can only be to cause annoyance.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

My Learned Mr Ormerod

WHEN THE PIG OF DISAPPOINTMENT FLYS PAST THE WINDOW OF EXPECTATION, THEN THE GOBLETS OF ANTICIPATION WILL RUN DRY.

fred robinson

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

Dear Mr. Robinson

I refer to your email received on 20 January 2008.

As stated in my reply of 19 January, if you are not content with the
outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply to the
Information Commissioners Office.

Your sincerely,

Ms.S.Acharya
Lawyer
Corporate Legal Services Group
Tel Direct Line 0208 235 6334

...............................................................................................................................................................

Dear Ms Ahahara

YOUR DOWNLOAD:

Dear Mr. Robinson Section 1(1)(a) (iii)of the Malicious
Communications Act 1998

I refer to the email dated 22 December 2008 from our Freedom of
Information Officer (`FOI Officer') confirming that your request
for an internal review had been passed to a lawyer.

The matter was referred to me. I am one of the lawyers in Corporate
Legal Services, which is responsible for dealing with issues
arising under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (`FOI'). I am
based at the Harrow Sub-Office.

In your email of 11 November 2008 you enquired whether Land
Registry Officers are subject to section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the
Malicious Communications Act 1988.

I note that our FOI Officer replied on 26 November 2008 and
provided you with information confirming that under the Civil
Service Code, Land Registry Staff have a duty to comply with the
law and up hold the administration of justice. This has been
further confirmed in subsequent emails. The FOI officer also
provided you with the Civil Service Code in this respect.

I am aware that you have been in and are in correspondence with
various Land Registry colleagues in relation to your matter over a
number of years. I do not intend to re-open any of the issues or
matters, which have been the subject of on-going correspondence
between you and Land Registry colleagues nor review these aspects.
The information you have sought is available under the Land
Registration Act 2002 and Land Registration Rules 2003. I do not
believe that such request would fall under the terms of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 nor has any information been withheld.

I am also aware that Mr. Westcott Rudd has already undertaken one
review in respect of correspondence, which was initially the
responsibility of Mr Robertson. You have already received a reply
on this.

My review is therefore limited to the letter of 9 April 2003 in the
context of the section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious
Communications Act 1988.

I note that you had an issue with the word `attached', which was
used in the letter of 9 April 2003. A lawyer from our Wales Office
c clarified the position in letters dated 23 June 2008 and more
recently in the letter to you dated15 December 2008. In relation to
this, I do not consider that there has been a refusal to provide
you with information but to clarify the meaning in that letter. The
lawyer from the Wales office has given you his view that the writer
of the 2003 letter was `relying on her own interpretation of the
historical mapping detail'. I do not consider that there has been
any refusal to provide information.

Having considered the letter, it is my view that the information
did not convey information, which is false and known or believed to
be false by the sender for the purpose of causing distress or
anxiety. The purpose of the Malicious Communications Act was to
create an offence which would penalise the sending or delivering of
poison pen letters, which are grossly offensive or indecent, a
threat or intended to cause distress or anxiety ,for example,
stating in a letter that a relation is dead when that writer knows
that such a statement is false.

I do not consider that the writer of the 2003 letter had such
intent but was trying to be helpful in providing information and
assistance in relation to your enquiry.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 gave effect to The Law
Commission Report on Poison-Pen Letters No 147 (1985). The Report
states that in the Law Commission's view it would be unacceptable
to penalise communication containing true statement which were not
grossly offensive or indecent or threatening in character even if
the purpose was to cause anxiety or distress. As stated the writer
of the 2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own
view. I accept that this should have been made clear in the letter.
I do not consider that there was any intent to cause anxiety or
distress.

In my view this completes the review.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner
for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioners Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

IS THE ANSWER TO MY FOI REQUEST:

"Land Registry Staff have a duty to comply with the law and up hold
the administration of justice."

MEANING THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE LAW AND ALSO
HAVE AN OVERRIDING OBLIGATION UNDER THE CIVIL SERVANT CODE TO
UPHOLD THE "ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT RESERVATION " BY ONLY
PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION TO THE PUBLIC WHICH CAN BE RELIED ON IN
LAW, I.E. DURING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ?, OR DOES IT MEAN SOMETHING
ELSE ?

I NOTE YOU STATE THAT YOU WILL NOT 'REVISIT' PAST MATTERS AND THEN
ADDRESS PAST MATTERS WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH
THE WORD "ATTACHED" WHEN THE WORD "ATTACHED IS NOT PART OF MY FOI
REQUEST ?

"ATTACHED" CLEARLY HAS ITS OWN MEANING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, IN
FACT AND IN LAW.

I REMIND YOU, AS A LAWYER, THAT YOU CANNOT SET THE STAGE FOR A
STATUTORY DEFENCE IN AN FOI REQUEST - "As stated the writer of the
2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own view" -
AS EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PAID TO GIVE THEIR OWN VIEW REGARDING MATTERS
OF FACT ON BEHALF OF THEIR EMPLOYERS UNLESS INSTRUCTED BY THEIR
EMPLOYERS TO DO SO.

I WON'T INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE BY REFERRING YOU TO THE RELATIVE
ACTS AND CASE LAW, OF WHICH THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE BUT I WILL RELY
ON YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT
YOU TELL ME.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Ms Ahahara

I TRUST THAT YOU ARE CONFIRMING THAT THE LAND REGISTRY IS NOT CONFIRMING OR SUPPORTING THE STATEMENT THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE 'ATTACHED' IS TRUE BECAUSE.

"As stated the writer of the 2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own view."

AND WAS THEREFORE ACTING OUTSIDE OF THAT EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT THAT EMPLOYEE CLEARLY NEGLECTED THE DUTY YOU REFER TO, I.E.

"Land Registry Staff have a duty to comply with the law and up hold
the administration of justice."

THAT 'VIEW' WAS NOT OBTAINED FROM ANY MAPPING OR RECORD THE REGISTRY HOLDS OR FROM THE OFFICE COPIES REGARDING TITLES LA45086, LA45343 OR MS351603 OR ANY OTHER OFFICE COPY BASED ON OS SJ3396 - AS THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF 21 LIME GROVE IS RECORDED AT THE REGISTRY.

AS A LAWYER, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND A MALICIOUS STATEMENT TO MEAN AN INDEFENSIBLE INTENTIONAL STATEMENT MADE WITH NO BASIS IN FACT, RECKLESSLY AND WITH NO TRUTH OR FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN IT WHATSOEVER- NO MATTER WHAT THE EFFECTS OF THAT STATEMENT HAS ON THE RECIPIENT.

THE SENDER OF SUCH A STATEMENT CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT OF IT MAY BE, BUT MUST KNOW IT IS UNTENABLE.

CLEARLY SUCH A STATEMENT IS MALICIOUS AS IT IS INTENDED TO BE BELIEVED BY THE RECIPIENT, AND THAT IS THE PRIME INTENTION OF THE SENDER. THE EFFECT ON THE RECIPIENT IS UNKNOWN UNTIL IT OCCURS

THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENT THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE ATTACHED HAS ONE FALLACIOUS SOURCE AND I SEE NO COINCIDENCE THAT THAT SOURCE IS CONNECTED WITH FORGED LAND REGISTRY TITLES AND A FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM REGARDING THE ATTACHMENT OF 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WHICH BOTH ORIGINATE WITH SEFTON COUNCIL AND THEIR CONTENTION THAT:

19 LIME GROVE WAS ONCE IN A "MID TERRACE LOCATION IN LIME GROVE" WHICH,

MUST, INDISPUTABLY MEAN THAT IT WAS ATTACHED TO NUMBER 21 LIME GROVE. THEREFORE I DO NOT SEE HOW YOU CAN SAY:

"it is my view that the information did not convey information, which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender"

WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION OR A REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF HOW THAT 'VIEW' COULD POSSIBLY BE REACHED.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Ms.S.Acharya

I TRUST YOU ARE CONFIRMING:

"The Member of the Land Registry staff who wrote to you on 9 April
2003...was relying on her own interpretation of the historical
mapping detail, as opposed to information provided by the local
authority."

AND NOT HER "OWN VIEW" BUT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF "HISTORICAL MAPPING"?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
KNOWLEDGE

The vendor of land must show to the purchaser a good unencumbered title, which the purchaser does not need to investigate before a binding contract is made.

If the land is unregistered the vendor must show and verify good title to his land by way of an abstract, which summarises all the documentary evidence regarding the land and all deaths, if any, that have affected the transfer of the land.

The purchaser, or his solicitor, then examines the abstract to satisfy himself that the property described in the abstract matches the property his client is to purchase, and advises him to continue with the purchase.

Such an abstract was produced in the sale to Crosby Council of 21 Lime Grove and, states the following – text modified:

“Land situated on the north side of Lime Grove…bounded on the west by the detached dwellinghouse and Premises then or lately belonging to Mr Bentley on the east side by the property belonging to the said Arthur Woods and on the North by the middle of a common passage measuring in front to lime Grove134 feet 9 inches or thereabout and at the back along the middle of the said common passage 135feet 2 inches or thereabout running in depth backwards or the East and West sides severally 60 feet or thereabout. Together with 9 dwellinghouses thereon erected and being the odd numbers 3 to 19 inclusive”.

This abstract must have been in the possession of both Sefton and Maritime when the land was sold in 1993 and was most certainly in the possession of the Land Registry.

Therefore it is not possible, for anyone in possession of, or knowing the contents of the above abstract to adduce any evidence, record or document or map or, hold or rely on or, be able to prove, any misunderstanding or any true belief that 19 and 21 Lime Grove were ever adjoined or attached to each other by a party wall.

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear MILES GILL

s.1 of the Malicious Communications Act states:

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety. —

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

(a) a Letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender;

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

YOUR LAWYERS DOWNLOAD:

"Having considered the letter, it is my view that the information did not convey information, which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. The purpose of the Malicious Communications Act was to create an offence which would penalise the sending or delivering of poison pen letters, which are grossly offensive or indecent, a threat or intended to cause distress or anxiety ,for example, stating in a letter that a relation is dead when that writer knows that such a statement is false.

I do not consider that the writer of the 2003 letter had such intent but was trying to be helpful in providing information and assistance in relation to your enquiry.

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 gave effect to The Law Commission Report on Poison-Pen Letters No 147 (1985). The Report states that in the Law Commission’s view it would be unacceptable to penalise communication containing true statement which were not grossly offensive or indecent or threatening in character even if the purpose was to cause anxiety or distress. As stated the writer of the 2003 was not making a false statement but giving their own view. I accept that this should have been made clear in the letter. I do not consider that there was any intent to cause anxiety or distress."

YOUR CONTENTION THAT:

"the writer of the 2003 letter...was trying to be helpful in providing information and assistance."

DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE FACT UNLESS THE OFFICER WHO PROVIDED THE FALSE INFORMATION TO ME DID IT, NOT FROM ANY POINT OF VIEW THAT WOULD PASS THE GHOSH TEST BECAUSE, THE REGISTRIES RECORDS, EITHER DO OR DO NOT CONFIRM THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE STATEMENT AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HONESTLY KNOWN OR BE BELIEVABLE TO THE SENDER IF THEY SHOW THE STATEMENT WAS FALSE

CLEARLY THE PROVISION OF ANY FALSE INFORMATION CAN HAVE NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OR HONEST INTENTION.

IT APPEARS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THE REGISTRY AND SEFTON COUNCIL OVER THIS MATTER AS THE COINCIDENCE OF FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY BOTH THE REGISTRY AND SEFTON COUNCIL IS NOT CREDIBLE, NOR WOULD ANY REASONABLE AND HONEST PERSON FIND IT SO.

THE CONTENTION THAT THIS INFORMATION WAS "HELPFUL" TO ME IS INANE, AS IT CAN ONLY BE OF "HELP AND ASSISTANCE" TO AID AND ABET ANYONE WHO IS UPHOLDING A FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM.

THE CONTENTION THAT A CHARGE ON A PERSONS HOME, LOSS OF HIS PEACE OF MIND, THAT IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE REGISTRIES "HELPFUL" INFORMATION, WOULD NOT CAUSED ANXIETY OR DISTRESS TO ANY PERSON IS AN UTTERLY DESPICABLE AN CONTEMPTIBLE THING TO SAY.

I ALSO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THE OFFICER CONCERNED STATED THERE WAS A MAP SUPPORTING THE INFORMATION, IF ONE EXISTS, I REQUEST YOU ASK THE BIRKENHEAD OFFICE, WHO MADE THE STATEMENT, TO NOW SEND ME A COPY OR CONFIRM THERE ISN'T ONE TO SEND.

AGAIN, I TRUST THAT YOU ARE CONFIRMING THAT CRIMINAL CHARGES CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE REGISTRIES OFFICERS FOR THE PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION UNLESS THEY PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE INFORMATION TRUE.

I ALSO REMIND YOU OF S. 2 3 AND 4 OF THE FRAUD ACT WHICH STATE:

SECTION 2. A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

SECTION 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

SECTION 4. Fraud by abuse of position

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Miles, Gill,

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

Miles, Gill, Land Registry

I am presently away from the office until Monday 2 March 2009.

If you do need to speak to someone in my absence please redirect your
concerns as follows:

Data Protection queries should be forwarded to Jane Allen at Croydon on
0208 388 3339

Freedom of Information queries should be forwarded to Sushma Acharya at
Harrow on 0208 235 6334

And general queries should be referred to Valerie Knight at Head Office on
0207 166 4376

Many thanks.
Regards,
Gill

Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk

If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please
let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in
confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks
all mail and attachments for known viruses, however, you are advised that
you open any attachments at your own risk.

show quoted sections

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Land Registry's handling of my FOI request 'Section 1 (1) (a) (iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988'.

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson