Dear Independent Complaints Reviewer,
taken from the home page of your website :-
1) "Welcome to the ICR Office
The ICR office investigates complaints made by members of the public, businesses, professional advisors and others. We provide the independent complaints review service for two public bodies: HM Land Registry and Youth Justice Agency (Northern Ireland).
Our main role is to provide a free, effective and impartial complaints review and resolution service that settles complaints in a proportionate manner and makes a positive difference for all those who use our service.
The ICR office cannot consider disputes about official decisions made by these public bodies or legal matters.
The ICR office is not a part of the management structure of any of the organisations which it investigates and our services are free to complainants."
2) As a researcher for CASIA in 2009 , l am aware of questions being asked in The House of Commons by an MP on behalf of his dis-satisfied constituents , requesting information on the role of the ICR and statistics of cases they handled , with achieved levels of satisfaction of the public using their services. The results revealed little over 100 cases and only partial satisfaction of less that half of those cases.
3 ) It is not the recorded remit of the ICR to involve itself with other agencies , only those that come under its prescribed remits.
However-(4) In February / March 2009 , l was directed by staff at the ICR to tell the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the unsuitability of a case l had become involved in by Land Registry ( a case challenged on record by FIVE PARTIES) and their having wrongly referred it to The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, who l was told was answerable to investigation and the jurisdiction of the PHSO.
5 ) Already admitted under a FOIA request is the fact twenty-two cases referred by Land Registry to the AHMLR between March -October 2009, were sent by the AHMLR to the ICR to investigate.
6) Thus proportionate cases in view of what Parliament was told in 2009 , appear to suggest this perceived and unusual agreement between the AHMLR & ICR , massaged the actual number of cases for investigation involving the ICR , raising the tally some twenty plus percent, while also depriving the Chief Executive of Land Registry ( Marco Pierleoni), from total accuracy in the publishing of the Financial Statement ( being a legal document) for same year , and it recording only three complaints against Land Registry , two being dealt with and only one complaint in the pipeline for that year with the PHSO for their investigation of Land Registry.
7) In March 2012 , l was allowed copy of record of the handling of my case by the ICR , that was sufficiently deficient for me, l feel, to now make request under the FOIA and for public interest , to ask for the crucial information of the twenty -two cases l was denied being included into , being cases that in totality were for the correct investigation of the PHSO. Which Land Registry on record then had told The Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP in his role of Minister over Land Registry at Business Innovation & Skills, that my case had been investigated twice by the ICR.
8) The Financial Ombudsman Office , being a correct agency for me to have contacted in early 2008, already had pointed out it was wrong for Land Registry to have referred any case to the AHMLR while not investigating their previous made assurances to me, both written and verbal.
Your message has not been delivered. Our email address has changed from @icr.gsi.gov.uk to @icrev.org.uk
Please resend your email to the new address.
Sent request to Independent Complaints Reviewer again, using a new contact address.