Supply of Forged Title Maps

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 under the freedom of Information Act that the Registry supplies forged maps to the public.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Mr Ormerod left an annotation ()

If this isn't a vexatious request, I don't know what is.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

With regard to Mr Omerod's comment, it may be vexatious to him as he has not supplied the public with forged maps, as far as I know that is.

Nick Peters left an annotation ()

Fred

If this organisation does supply forged maps, would they admit, either under FOI legislation or otherwise?

I fear that your questions are in danger of undermining the whole FOI legislation. Is this really your intention?

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Nick Peters

No.

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail of 14th November.

I am unsure what you mean by 'forged maps'. If you are referring to the
title plans that Land Registry prepares as part of the process of
registration, they are only prepared by Land Registry officials for
official purposes. In this respect, I can confirm that Land Registry does
not supply 'forged maps' to the public, either by them not being official
title plans or falsified in some other way with the intent to deceive or
defraud. If you are referring to title plans being incorrectly drawn in
some way through error or omission, as opposed to by fraud, then there are
procedures for rectifying errors on the register and/or title plans.

If you are referring to plans attached to deeds that are submitted to Land
Registry for registration, then these are of course prepared by the
applicants or their representatives, not Land Registry. As explained to
you in an earlier e-mail, we have a number of measures in place to help
prevent and to detect fraud and forgery, such as identity checks for
applicants in certain types of registration application. I should also
reiterate that plans submitted to Land Registry in support of registration
applications are subject to a number of criteria for acceptability for
registration purposes, and they are checked by our staff to ensure
consistency with the title or interest claimed in any application.

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.

Nick Peters left an annotation ()

Dear Fred Robinson

If it is not your intention to undermine the principles of the FOI legislation, why are you using the act to try and force a number of organisations to admit that they behave in an illegal manner?

As I stated previously, if any organisation, whether it be Merseytravel, Sefton Council, Ordnance Survey or Land Registry, is operating in an illegal manner, they are unlikely to confirm this to you simply because you have made your request under the FOI laws.

If you have evidence of any such illegal acts, then this should be produced to the relevant authorities. If you don't have sufficient evidence, you are unlikely to obtain it through an FOI request!

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

dear Nick Peters

Perhaps you should wait for the authorities to answer the FOI requests first, and then you will know what you do not know now. It seems an absurd concept that a person exercising the rights, given to him by law, could be thought to be undermining the law he is using. It is misconceived that a citizen cannot be allowed to exercise his rights: thats a benefit of living in a democratic society.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

I refer to forged maps as maps that are within your own definition of forgeries and that should be detectable by diligent reference and scrutiny to the authentic maps supplied by the OS - as forgeries.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail.

Whilst I note what you say, I do not think that I can usefully add anything further to what I have already said in my earlier e-mail.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robertson
Customer Service Manager

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

You have not answered the FOI question.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Christopher left an annotation ()

The question (or statement) was:
"Will you confirm or deny under the freedom of Information Act that the Registry supplies forged maps to the public."

This appears to have been answered in this sentence and the other clarifying information provided:
"I can confirm that Land Registry does not supply 'forged maps' to the public, either by them not being official title plans or falsified in some other way with the intent to deceive or defraud."

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Christopher

How do you that I and other's have not been supplied with forged maps by the Registry. You will note the respondent says he is unsure what I mean by forged maps.

This is being clarified elsewhere.

Christopher left an annotation ()

"I can confirm that Land Registry does not supply 'forged maps' to the public" seems pretty clear given the assumptions that the Land Registry had to make and informed you of.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by 'forged maps'? Is it:
* title plans (i.e. that the Land Registry prepares)
* maps sent to the Land Registry by applicants (i.e. part of deeds)
* something else specific?

From your title "Supply of Forged Title Maps", I would guess the former, the topic of which I believe the Land Registry did answer satisfactorily.

Often the FOI respondent may not have access to your full request history, so it may be beneficial to include the specific piece of information you want in your requests, perhaps in the form of bullet points for conciseness and ease of answering.

Hopefully that may help avoid some of the ambiguities that have been occurring in requests and responses.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Christopher

A person responding to any request from the public on behalf of an authority is expected to have full access to the information requested and are at liberty to ask for clarification of anything they don't understand.

With regard to your bulleted points: all three of them.

Forgery: The crime of producing something counterfeit or to forge, to alter the essence of a thing so as to deceive.

See The Forgery Act.

I have paid Landsearch (see their website) around £60 to obtain copies of three offending titles and their maps which, have not, and will not under the Law of Property Act or The Third Party Contract Act, be supplied by the Land Registry or Landsearch to me, notwithstanding the fact that the Registry has of its own volition supplied me with one of these forged maps for nothing when it wanted me to believe the forgery on it.

PS. The forged map that was provided to me for free showed the parallel feature (that the OS could not determine as such) to have been registered by the forged title map, after it had been demolished. Thus I have one forged map, certified by solicitors, showing no parallel feature when in fact it was in existence (in a truncated form) and photographed by myself and Sefton Council after the production of the first forged map, and a second forged map registering the parallel feature after it had been demolished.

I hope your now getting up to speed.

fred robinson

Christopher left an annotation ()

Oh yes, consider me enlightened.

fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Christopher

Always look before you leap.

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am sorry, but I remain of the view that I have answered your questions as fully as I can given what you have asked. I must also point out that under section 21 of the Act we are not required to provide information in response to a request if the information the subject of the request is already reasonably accessible i.e. without the need for a freedom of information request. In this case, you have questions about our practices in relation to plans, all of which is set out in the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003 and in our published guidance. I would refer you to our Practice Guide 40 - 'Land Registry Plans'. You can download the Guide from our website www.landregistry.gov.uk

Under the Act, further requests for the same or part of the same information will be treated as repeat requests and therefore will be exempt under Section 14 of the Act.

This response therefore concludes the freedom of information aspect of your request.

If you are dissatisfied with this response to your request, you may seek an internal review by writing to:

Head of Corporate Legal Services
Land Registry Head office
Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London
WC2A 3PH

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Land Registry.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robertson
Customer Service Manager

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

Given the evidence the Registry holds with regard to the forged titles it has provided to the public. You have not answered the "core question" of whether or not the Registry supplies forged title maps to the public

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have nothing further that I can add. If you are dissatisfied with this response, then you must seek an internal review as explained in my previous e-mail.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robertson
Customer Service Manager

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

As the Registry has in fact supplied members of the public with forged title maps, what can an internal review achieve to have that fact confirmed or denied.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Land Registry

2 Attachments

Your message has been delayed and is still awaiting delivery
to the following recipient(s):

[email address]
Message delayed

Your message is delayed
Message for domain landregistry.gsi.gov.uk delayed at landreg.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 30 hours.
Will continue trying for 18 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
CantConnectToHost

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

i trust you will respond to my response sent to you today you when it has 'cleared'.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Land Registry

2 Attachments

Your message has been delayed and is still awaiting delivery
to the following recipient(s):

[email address]
Message delayed

Your message is delayed
Message for domain landregistry.gsi.gov.uk delayed at landreg.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 36 hours.
Will continue trying for 12 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
CantConnectToHost

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Land Registry

2 Attachments

Your message has been delayed and is still awaiting delivery
to the following recipient(s):

[email address]
Message delayed

Your message is delayed
Message for domain landregistry.gsi.gov.uk delayed at landreg.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 42 hours.
Will continue trying for 6 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
CantConnectToHost

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Time is up, what happens now.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Time is up, what happens now.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Land Registry

2 Attachments

Your message has been delayed and is still awaiting delivery
to the following recipient(s):

[email address]
Message delayed

Your message is delayed
Message for domain landregistry.gsi.gov.uk delayed at landreg.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 48 hours.
Will continue trying for 0 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
CantConnectToHost

show quoted sections

Land Registry

2 Attachments

Your message has encountered delivery problems
to the following recipient(s):

[email address]
Delivery failed

Unable to deliver to destination domain
Failed to deliver to domain landregistry.gsi.gov.uk after 145 tries.
The last error was:
CantConnectToHost

show quoted sections

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

What happens next.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

Dear Mr Robinson

This e-mail is just to confirm that we have received your e-mails of 5th
and 6th December, whose delivery into our server was apparently delayed
for some reason.

As you know, however, I have nothing further to add and can only refer you
to the information in my earlier e-mail of 4th December. Any further
e-mails that I receive from you on this particular point will be
considered, but filed without reply unless they raise new issues.

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.

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

For the absence of doubt are you saying the title maps provided to myself by the Registry at Birkenhead and used to register titles LA45086 in March 1977, LA45343 in April 1977 and title MS351603 in August 1994, are not forgeries. Nor is another title map used to register land I have sent to you dated 1984, but composed of two different OS maps dated 1969 and 1984.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request an internal review

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

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

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

I am now out of the office until the morning of Monday 5th January. I will
not have access to my e-mails whilst I am away.

If the matter is urgent and you need to contact somone in my absence,
please e-mail Ian Flowers at [email address]

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 Robertson, Andrew,

GOOD MORNING, ITS JANUARY 9TH 2009

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear ROBERTSON ANDREW

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

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

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

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

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

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further, with another twist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear ROBERTSON ANDREW

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING:

1.
Sefton Council from the evidence below did not have sufficient legal interest over the land to instruct Fawley Construction to grant me a one metre strip of land along my gable wall and alter the boundary of the land between my property and that of Maritime housing Association: Consequently, it is for Maritime to establish that Sefton was given that interest in the strip of land to give it to me on their behalf.

It is common ground between Maritimes contractor Fawley Construction and Sefton that Sefton’s instructions to Fawley in April 1994 for the alteration of the boundary based on Sefton’s mapping, was supported by Maritime at the Planning stage of the development granted on June 29th 1994 under reference’s: 417/02 - 417/04 - 417//04 – 417/05, 417/06 plus revised layout plan, and 417/07 revision E.

It is also common ground between Sefton Council, myself and its insurers, Royal & SunAlliance that the Council had no insurable interest in the land from December 24th 1993 when Sefton transferred the land title to Maritime.
However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton, Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994 state “NO HANDOVER WILL BE ACCEPTED WITHIN 10 DAYS PRIOR TO CHRISTMAS DAY.”
Maritime at that time were averring that their ‘RECORDS’ showed the land was transferred to them from Sefton in “MID 1995.”
The registration for this land under tile MS351603 is recorded as August 31st 1994. The Land Registry say that from December 24th 1993 Maritime were the owners of the land, the Registry also say in an office copy dated February 3rd 2006, that, due to the transfer of the land, the title absolute of the freehold land was Maritime’s from January 21st 1994.
There is no common ground between Maritime and Sefton as to who had ‘CONTROL’ over the land from December 24th 1993 until September 1994..
Sefton’s CEO states that from December 24th 1993 Maritime were RESPONSIBLE for the land, however, the Council’s insurance section and the CEO’s officers state that Council had an interest in the property until is was “HANDED BACK TO MARITIME ON APRIL 1ST 1994”. This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability Act between January and September 1994.
However, Maritime say that Sefton were “IN CONTROL OF THEIR CONTRACTORS ON THE LAND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES ON IT” which was until: so Sefton’s Principle Architect says, SEPTEMBER 1995. This brings Sefton within the Occupiers Liability Act between January 1994 and September 1995. Fawley, who did not start their building activities on the land until September 1994, aver in a WITNESS STATEMENT to the court they were under the ‘VERBALLY AGREED’ control of Sefton in February 1995.
However, Sefton say that they were LICENCED by Maritime to be on the land to effect demolition of the existing maisonettes between JANUARY 21ST AND MARCH 31ST 1994 when their interest in the site ceased. This removes them from the Occupiers liability Act.
However, Sefton also say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that, to the best of their knowledge, “MARITIME HOUSING TOOK POSSESSION OF THE SITE ON MARCH 14TH 1994.” This means that whoever Maritime took possession from on March 14th 1994 had POSSESSED the site until March 14th 1994.
However, Maritime say as far as they were aware [DV/PQ A4345 SEPTEMBER 28TH 1999] that, “UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1994 THE SITE WAS UNDER THE CONTROL OF SEFTON COUNCIL WHO WERE NOT ACTING ON THE BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994…THEY WERE APPOINTED BY US TO OVERSEE AND LOOK AFTER OUR INTERESTS WHILST THE HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT” This brings Sefton under the Occupiers Liability Act ‘up to September 1995.
However, Sefton say [PAW/RRROB6 MAY 8TH 2000] that “FROM DECEMBER 24TH 1994 THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAND PASSED TO MARITIME AND ANY WORK OF DEMOLITION BY SEFTON WHICH MAY HAVE STILL BEEN UNDERWAY AFTER THAT DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY MARITIME”. This asserts that Sefton were acting “ON BEHALF OF THIS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994”.
However, Maritime say [DV/PJQ/A2983 MARCH 2ND 1999] that “I am sure you will appreciate that there are many departments in Sefton Council that could have carries out the demolition, if, in fact the demolition was carried out by Sefton Council.”
However, Maritime state [DV/PQ/A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] “THIS ASSOCIATION WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE MAISONETTE BLOCKS WHICH PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED THE SITE. THIS ASSOCIATION TOOK POSSESSION [ON MARCH 14TH 1994] OF A CLEARED SITE, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION BY SEFTON COUNCIL.”
However Royal & SunAlliance say on November 16th 200 [in a claim for an incident on January 17th 1994 referenced: RR98XN/conner/TPPZ] that ”ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY RESULTING IN THE DEMOLITION WORKS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN 14 MARCH AND 6 APRIL 1994 SHOULD BE REDIRECTED TO FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION WHO WERE THE DEMOLITION CONTACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORKS.” – “Work’s” is defined as including demolition works under the Building Act.
However, Maritime say [DV/PQ/A3054 MARCH 17TH 1999] “THE SITE CLEARANCE WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE SAME CONTRACTOR WHO UNDERTOOK THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR THIS ASSOCIATION.” Which was a reaffirmation of a statement by Maritime and copied to Sefton [DV\PQ\A2302 MARCH 4TH 1999] regarding “THE ASSOCIATIONS BUILDING CONTRACTOR WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT AT KEPLER STREET.” Which was again reiterated by Maritime’s statement [PJQ\DV\C3019 SEPTEMBER 8TH 1999] that “THE STRICT LEGAL POSITION IS THAT WHEN A CONTRACTOR TAKES POSSESSION OF A SITE HE IS RESPONSIBLE UNTIL THAT SITE IS HANDED BACK TO THE OWNER…SEFTON MBC WERE EMPLOYED AS THIS ASSOCIATION’S AGENTS, AND AS SUCH WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING SUCH ACTION AS WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE COMPLETION OF THE NEW HOUSES. THEY WERE, THEREFORE, EFFECTIVELY IN CONTROL OF THE SITE ON OUR BEHALF.” This brings Fawley within the Occupiers Liability Act.
However, the minutes from a ‘pre site meeting attended by Sefton, Fawley and Maritime on July 28th 1994, some months after the demolition of the maisonettes on the land had been completed, give the dates for contract COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT WITH FAWLEY AS COMMENCING ON MARCH 14TH 1994 WITH A COMPLETION DATE OF APRIL 21ST 1995.
However, Fawley Construction says that they took POSSESSION of the land on March 14th 1994.
However, there is a document “PASSAGE OF OWNERSHIP” dated March 14th 1994, accompanied by an undated deed TRANSFERRING the land from Fawley to Maritime to meet their stage payments for work under the ‘City Challenge Scheme’ sponsored by the Government.
The law is that: If A and B are in dispute about ownership of a piece of land, the only question for the court is which of the two of them has the better title to the land.
From the above it appears that Maritime contest the date on which they themselves owned the land by the transfer of it to them from Sefton being dated by them as either December 24th 1993 [a witness statement to the court, verified by a statement of truth states Maritime, ”obtained legal title to the land on the 24th December 1993] which is contradicted by the statement on February 1st 1999 that Maritime’s records showed the land was transferred to them in “MID 1995.”
It is not common ground with anyone that the land was registered or unregistered on December 24th 1993.
Section 3 (2) of the Land Registration Act 2002 deals with the circumstances in which a person may apply to be registered as the proprietor of what had hitherto been an unregistered legal estate. Section 3(2) provides as follows:
Section 11 (11) of the Land Registration Act deals with the effect of registration of a person as the proprietor of a freehold estate, and provides: "THE ESTATE IS VESTED IN THE PROPRIETOR TOGETHER WITH ALL INTERESTS SUBSISTING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE."


It is clear there was a delay of over seven months between the possesessory title of the land and its registration on August 31st 1994, this registration should have been completed within two months and. by virtue of that fact, and there must have been something ‘special’ to account for this delay.

Section 11(7) deals with the special case of possessory title and provides that: "REGISTRATION WITH POSSESSORY TITLE HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS REGISTRATION WITH ABSOLUTE TITLE, EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST ADVERSE TO, OR IN DEROGATION OF, THE PROPRIETOR'S TITLES SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OR THEN CAPABLE OF ARISING."


It is common ground [by evidence] between Sefton and Maritime and the Land Registry that on January 21st 1994 Maritime became the owners of the land by way of a forged certified transfer document and forged mapping composed of two versions of OS SJ3398 dated 1978 and 1969 cut and pasted together. It is also common ground [by evidence] that the Registry ALTERED the mapping used in the transfer with a forged title map for this same land composed of two versions of OS SJ3396 dated 1969 and 1884 cut and pasted together.

The reasons allowed by the Land Registry Act allow the registrar to alter the registrar; “FOR THE PURPOSE OF:
 (A) CORRECTING A MISTAKE,
 (B) BRINGING THE REGISTER UP TO DATE,
 (C) GIVING EFFECT TO ANY ESTATE, RIGHT OR INTEREST EXCEPTED FROM THE EFFECT OF REGISTRATION, OR
( D) REMOVING A SUPERFLUOUS ENTRY.”

AND

2.

There are two copies of the transfer document between Sefton Council and Maritime Housing Association.

The first was given to me by Royal & SunAlliance in a witness statement bundle in July 2004 and is stamped CAU. It has not had stamp duty paid on it and refers to four parcels of land sold by Sefton to be designated with a new title number. These titles are described as:

a) part of the land comprised in Title LA45086

b) part of the land comprised in Title LA45343

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

d) the land comprised in a Statutory Declaration dated ………1993 made by Michael Scott

This land is the land registered under Title MS351603 on August 31st 1994 comprising of:

a) land at Kepler Street Seaforth registered under Title MS351603 in March 1977.

b) land at Maple Grove Seaforth registered under Title MS351603 in April 1977.

c) a section of the public highway at Maple Close Seaforth.

d) property in Beaumaris Street Seaforth registered under title MS351603 in April 1977 and shown on the 1966 edition of OS SJ3396.

On November 21st 2007 Mr Williams, a Land Registry lawyer wrote the following to me:

“You have enclosed with your letter a copy of the front page of a Transfer dated December 24th 1993…you indicate that you believe that the date of the statutory declaration has been erased from this deed. Having compared it to the copy of the completed transfer…it seems likely that the copy you have been supplied with would have been a file copy as it does not bear either the hand written date of the statutory declaration or the stamp duty impression…the most likely explanation would seem to be that the date of the statutory declaration had not actually been entered and had been left blank on the file copy held by the solicitors…the copy would appear to have been taken…prior to the date of the statutory declaration and prior to the Transfer having been submitted to the inland revenue for stamping or being presented for registration. The date of the statutory declaration may have been left blank until after completion and only entered at that stage. As the document you refer to does not appear to have been issued by the Land Registry as an official copy section 113 of the Land Registration Act 1925 which relates to the suppression of documents…it would be a matter for the court to decide in all the circumstances of the case what weight should be given to any particular evidence that is presented to it.”

The procedure referred to by Mr Williams, and the procedure for obtaining stamp duty below, do not correspond because:

THE REGISTRAR MUST ENSURE THAT ALL TRANSFER DOCUMENTS THAT REQUIRE STAMP DUTY ARE STAMPED BEFORE REGISTRATION AND IF A TRANSFER DOCUMENT IS DELAYED PRIOR TO STAMPING THE APPLICANT MUST FIRST PRESENT THE TRANSFER DOCUMENT AND A CERTIFIED COPY TO THE REGISTRAR AND STATE IN WRITING THAT THE STAMPED ORIGINAL WILL BE PRESENTED AS SOON AS IT IS STAMPED. THE ORIGINAL IS THEN GIVEN BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO BE STAMPED.

Clearly, what was on the copy given back to the solicitors by the registrar must have been the same as the copy filed with the registrar, and just as clearly, it’s a long way from a document filed at the registry in 1993, to a bundle in a case in 2004 regarding the same land.

On February 29th 2008, Mr Williams confirmed to me:

“Land Registry produces a title plan for each title it creates which is based on the Ordnance Survey map…the title plan MS361603…was created in 1994.”

I HOPE THIS ASSISTS

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear ROBERTSON ANDREW

FOR INFORMATION

A FEW SIMPLE FACTS PRESENTED TO ME:



1. ON DECEMBER 24TH 1993 MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOUGHT THE
LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE - THE KEPLER STREET SITE - FROM
SEFTON COUNCIL WITH A FORGED MAP WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR
SCREEN WALL.



2. ON MARCH 29TH 1994 SEFTON AND MARITIME INSPECTED THE SITE AND
PROPOSED TO GIVE ME A ONE METRE WIDE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY GABLE
WALL. AT THIS TIME THE NIB WALL WAS IN SITU. THIS PROPOSAL WAS TO
BE AMENDED TO THE SITE PLANS BY MARITIME’S CONTRACTOR’ FAWLEY.



3. PRIOR TO PLANNING PERMISSION FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION - AT THE
WRITTEN REQUEST OF SEFTON, MARITIME'S APPOINTED AGENTS -SUBMITTED
PLAN 417/01 FOR PLANNING PERMISSION USING A SEFTON DRAWING HSG
1187.1A WHICH THEY CONFIRM DID NOT SHOW THE NIB OR SCREEN WALL.



MARITIME STATE THE ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND WAS FENCED OFF:



"On the authority of this Association and Sefton Council as our
consultants...clearly as the land was in our ownership we did not
require your permission"



4. A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS FOUND THE NIB WALL WAS DEMOLISHED BETWEEN
MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 1994.



5. SEFTON HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU DATED MARCH 7TH
1994 AND I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE NIB WALL IN SITU TAKEN AFTER
APRIL 21ST 1994. FAWLEY HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING NO NIB WALL WHICH
THEY SAY WAS TAKEN IN SEPTEMBER 1994.



6. ON JUNE 28TH 1994 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PLANS 417/01 TO 417/17
WERE GRANTED TO MARITIME HOUSING AND FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION. INCLUDED
IN THOSE PLANS WAS THE PROPOSED ONE METRE STRIP OF LAND ALONG MY
GABLE WALL WITHOUT THE NIB WALL, AS VERIFIED BY SEFTONS DRAWING HSG
1187. 1A AND WHICH SEFTON PASSED.



7. ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY REGISTERED THE KEPLER
STREET SITE TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION USING A FORGED OS MAP
THAT SHOWED THE SCREEN WALL IN SITU.



Nobody has said the maps referred to above are not forged.



I REFER YOU TO THE BUILDING ACT 1984

SECTION

6

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless

(a) they are defective


(2) 
(2) If the plans



(a) are defective



(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited



(a) has requested them to do so, or



(b) has consented to their doing so



(5) A request or consent under subsection (4) above shall be in
writing



(6) The authority shall within the relevant period from the deposit
of the plans give notice to the person by whom or on whose behalf
they were deposited whether they have been passed or rejected



(8) A notice that plans have been passed shall



(a) specify any condition subject to which they have been passed,
and


(b) state that the passing of the plans operates as an approval of
them only for the purposes of the requirements of



(9) Where the deposited plans are accompanied by



(a) a certificate given by a person approved for the purposes of
this subsection to the effect that the proposed work, if carried
out in accordance with the deposited plans, will comply with such
provisions of the regulations prescribed for the purposes of this
subsection as may be specified in the certificate, and



(b) such evidence as may be prescribed that an approved scheme
applies, or the prescribed insurance cover has been or will be
provided, in relation to the certificate



(10) In any case where a question arises under this section between
a local authority and a person who proposes to carry out any work

(a) whether plans of the proposed work are in conformity with
building regulations, or



(b) whether the local authority are prohibited from rejecting plans
of the proposed work by virtue of subsection

(9) above, that person
may refer the question to the Secretary of State for his
determination; and an application for a reference under this
subsection shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.



(11) Where


(a) deposited plans accompanied by such a certificate and such
evidence as are mentioned in subsection

(9) above are passed by the
local authority, or



(b) notice of the rejection of deposited plans so accompanied is
not given within the relevant period from the deposit of the plans,
the authority may not institute proceedings under section 35 below
for a contravention of building regulations that


(i) arises out of the carrying out of the proposed work in
accordance with the plans, and



(ii) is a contravention of any of the provisions of the regulations
specified in the certificate.



(12) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, “the relevant
period”, in relation to the passing or rejection of plans, means
five weeks or such extended period (expiring not later than two
months from the deposit of the plans) as may before the expiration
of the five weeks be agreed in writing between the person
depositing the plans and the local authority.



Section 16

Passing or rejection of plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with
building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is the
duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of this
Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to
reject plans, to pass the plans unless



(a) they are defective



(2) If the plans



(a) are defective


(b) 
(b) the local authority may



(i) reject the plans, or



(ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them subject to either
or both of the conditions set out in subsection (3) below.



(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are



(a) that such modifications as the local authority may specify
shall be made in the deposited plans, and



(b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be deposited.



(4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a condition
such as is specified in subsection (3) above if the person by whom
or on whose behalf they were deposited


(a) has requested them to do so, or



(c) has consented to their doing so.



Section 31

Proposed departure from plans



(1) Where plans of any proposed work have been passed under section
16 above by a local authority, the person by or on whose behalf the
plans were in accordance with building regulations deposited with
the authority may, and in such cases as may be prescribed shall,
for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the authority to any
proposed departure or deviation from the plans as passed, deposit
plans of the departure or deviation.



(2) Section 16 above applies in relation to plans deposited under
subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to the plans
originally deposited.



CLEARLY THE AMENDMENT SHOWN ON PLAN 417/01 WAS NOT REGARDED AS
BEING DEFECTIVE UNDER THE ACT AS IT WAS PASSED.



BY THE TIME THE NIB WALL (SCREEN WALL) WAS FILED ONTO THE TITLE BY
THE LAND REGISTRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 (AND, ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT JUDGE), IT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE.



BY SEPTEMBER 1994 IT WAS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO HAVE BEEN
DEMOLISHED.


Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

DATE OF CREATION OF TITLE MS351603:

ON MAY 4TH 2007 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR IN LONDON:

Re: Forged Maps Used in the Sale and Registration of Land

With regard to your letter to me dated May 4th 2007 I enclose the following:

1. Letter from yourselves dated September 17th 2002

2. Pre 1974 OS map SJ3396

3. Pre 1974 OS map SJ3396 dated by yourselves as 1984 overlaid onto the real 1984 OS SJ3396

4. Letter from yourselves dated April 9th 2003 making the malicious false statements that 19 and 21 Lime Grove were “originally attached” and that the demolition of maisonettes occurred “some time in the late 90’s”

5. Letter to myself from GTB, Sefton Councils demolition contractors who demolished the above maisonettes

With regard to the above, and other evidence already sent to yourselves the following appears to be the case:

The nib / screen wall did not pass to Maritime Housing Association by transfer on December 24th 1993 [see s.336 (1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990] and [Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989] but, by April 21st had appeared on the ground and was registered by yourselves as such on August 31st 1994, by which time it had been demolished (Sefton Council say) by GTB Demolition Ltd.

The attached OS SJ 3396 dated by yourselves as 1984 is instrumental in both the forged transfer and registration map. Quite why is being concealed from me by yourselves, but appears to aid and abet both Sefton Council and Maritime Housing in crimes.

This letter and enclosures and your letter of May 4th 2007 will be copied to;

The Tonight Program,

The Daily Telegraph Property Section,

John Prescott MP Deputy Prime Minister, and

the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police who will not accept a crime report regarding above the forged maps.

Deputy Prime Ministers copy only

Letter dated September 22nd 1999

This letter only copied to Maritime Housing Association and Sefton Councils Legal Director with a copy of a letter written to Maritime Housings Mr Quayle on September 2nd 1999 based on Maritimes assertion that their contractors were responsible for the demolition of the nib wall when, in 1994, the land was owned by Maritime.

I HAVE THREE DIFFERENT OFFICE COPIES OF TITLE MAPS SHOWING TITLE MS351603 PROVIDED TO ME BY THE REGISTRY AT BIRKENHEAD.

THE FIRST IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45086 IN MARCH 1977.

THE SECOND IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT MAPLE GROVE SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45343 IN APRIL 1977.

THE THIRD IS TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45086 IN MARCH 1977 AND LAND AT MAPLE GROVE SEAFORTH ‘GREENED OUT’ OF TITLE LA45343 IN APRIL 1977 JOINED TOGETHER BY ‘MAPLE CLOSE’ WHICH IS PART OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY.

TWO OF THESE TITLE MAPS ARE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, FORGERIES.

I ALSO HAVE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER FORGED REGISTRY TITLE MAP DATED 1984, WHICH IS NOT FOR TITLE MS351603, AND DOES NOT RELATE TO ME OR TITLE MS351603 BUT, IS IS ALSO BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, ALSO A FORGERY.

THE TEST THAT I, OR ANYBODY WHO CARES TO APPLY, TO PROVE THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS ARE A SIMPLE OBSERVATORY ONE WHICH ENTAILS TAKING THE FORGED MAPPING AND COMPARING IT WITH THE GENUINE MAPPING IT IS FORGED FROM.

THEREAFTER, ANY REASONABLE DECENT PERSON WHO HAS POSSESSION OF THE ABOVE MAPPING AND APPLIED THE ABOVE TEST, COULD NOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT THE REGISTRIES TITLE MAPS ARE NOT PROVEN TO BE FORGED.

THUS FAR NOBODY IN POSSESSION OF THE MAPPING, SUCH AS MR COLLIS OR THE POLICE OR THE LORD CHANCELLOR, OR THE PRIME MINISTER, HAS SAID THAT.

ON FEBRUARY 29TH 2008 THE REGISTRIES LAWYER, MR WILLIAMS, IN RESPONS TO ANOTHER LETTER WRITTEN TO MR COLLIS, ON FEBRUARY 19TH 2008, HEADED, “FORGED LAND REGISTRY TITLE MAP BASED ON OS SJ 3396 DATED 1969” FILED AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT AND, COPIED TO:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY

SEFTON COUNCIL’S CEO MR HEYWOOD

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION:

RESULTED IN THE REGISTRIES MR WILLIAMS WRITING THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I note you allege that there has been forgery of a “Registry title map dated 1984”. Land registry produces title plan for each title it creates which is based on the Ordnance Survey map. It is not clear whether your reference to a “Registry title map dated 1984” is which would have been created by Land Registry or to the Ordnance Survey map detail held by the Land Registry upon which such a title plan would have been based. The title plan for title MS351603…was created in 1994, the year in which the title was first created.”

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 WHICH APPLIES TO ANSWERS GIVEN TO ME UNDER THE FOIA.

s.100 Conduct of business-

(1) Any function of the registrar may be carried out by any member of the land registry who is authorised for the purpose by the registrar.

s.
120 Conclusiveness of filed copies etc

(1)This section applies where—

(a) a disposition relates to land to which a registered estate relates, and

(b) an entry in the register relating to the registered estate refers to a document kept by the registrar which is not an original.

(2) As between the parties to the disposition, the document kept by the registrar is to be taken—

(a) to be correct, and

(b) to contain all the material parts of the original document.

s. 123 Suppression of information

(1) A person commits an offence if in the course of proceedings relating to registration under this Act he suppresses information with the intention of—

(a) concealing a person’s right or claim, or

(b) substantiating a false claim.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 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.

s. 124 Improper alteration of the registers

(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.

I also refer you to the comments from ‘Cross on Evidence” 6th edition 1985 which states:

“WHENEVER IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONES CONDUCT COMPLIES WITH SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARD, AS WHERE NEGLIGENCE IS ALLEGED, EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW HOW OTHERS MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO BEHAVE IN SIMILER CIRCUMSTANCES.”

I ALSO REFER YOU TO THE GHOSH TEST AS PROPOUNDED IN R V GHOSH AS:

This brings us to the heart of the problem. Is ‘dishonestly’ in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 intended to characterise a course of conduct? Or is it intended to describe a state of mind? If the former, then we can well understand that it could be established independently of the knowledge or belief of the accused. But if, as we think, it is the latter, then the knowledge and belief of the accused are at the root of the problem.

“Take for example a man who comes from a country where public transport is free. On his first day here he travels on a bus. He gets off without paying. He never had any intention of paying. His mind is clearly honest; but his conduct, judged objectively by what he has done, is dishonest. It seems to us that in using the word ‘dishonestly’ in the Theft Act 1968, Parliament cannot have intended to catch dishonest conduct in that sense, that is to say conduct to which no moral obloquy could possibly attach. This is sufficiently established by the partial definition in section 2 of the Theft Act itself. All the matters covered by section 2 (1) relate to the belief of the accused. Section 2 (2) relates to his willingness to pay. A man’s belief and his willingness to pay are things which can only be established subjectively. It is difficult to see how a partially subjective definition can be made to work in harness with the test which in all other respects is wholly objective… So far as the present case is concerned, it seems to us that once the jury had rejected the defendant’s account in respect of each count in the indictment (as they plainly did), the finding of dishonesty was inevitable, whichever of the tests of dishonesty was applied. If the judge had asked the jury to determine whether the defendant might have believed that what he did was in accordance with the ordinary man’s idea of honesty, there could have only been one answer - and that is no, once the jury had rejected the defendant’s explanation of what happened.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

I am now out of the office until the morning of Monday 23rd February. I
will not have access to my e-mails whilst I am away. I will respond to
your e-mail as soon as I can on my return.

If the matter is urgent and you need a response in my absence, please
contact either Nimish Patel at [email address] or Ian
Flowers at [email address]

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 Robertson, Andrew,

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING FROM THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984: EVIDENCE FROM COMPUTER AND DOCUMENTARY RECORDS

S.68

(1) Subject to section 69 below, a statement in a document shall be admissible in any proceedings as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if--

(a) The document is or forms part of a record compiled by a person acting under a duty from information supplied by a person (whether acting under a duty or not) who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in that information; and

(b) any condition relating to the person who supplied the information which is specified in subsection (2) below is satisfied.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are--

(a) that the person who supplied the information--

(i) is dead, or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit to attend as a witness; 


(ii) is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; or

(iii) cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he supplied or acquired the information and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in that information;

(b) that all reasonable steps have been taken to identify the person who supplied the information but that he cannot be identified; and


(c) that, the identity of the person who supplied the information being known all reasonable steps have been taken to find him, but that he cannot be found

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence that would be admissible apart from this section

s. 69.

(1) In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown--

(a) that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;

(b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(c) that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied

(2) Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at such times as may be so required

s. 74:--

(3) In any proceedings where evidence is admissible of the fact that the accused has committed an offence, in so far as that evidence is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings for a reason other than a tendency to show in the accused a disposition to commit the kind of offence with which he is charged, if the accused is proved to have been convicted of the offence … he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice . . .

(a) the admissibility in evidence of any conviction which would be admissible apart from this section; or

(b) the operation of any enactment whereby a conviction or a finding of fact in any proceedings is for the purposes of any other proceedings made conclusive evidence of any fact

Exclusion of unfair evidence

s. 78.--

(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence

Schedule 3 Part I

1. Section 68 (1) above applies whether the information contained in the document was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied was acting under a duty; and applies also where the person compiling the record is himself the person by whom the information is supplied.

6. Any reference in section 68 above or this Part of this Schedule to a person acting under a duty includes a reference to a person acting in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation in which he is engaged or employed or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office held by him.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

WHEN YOU GET BACK, TRY TO RESIST SENDING ME THE FOLLOWING DOWNLOAD AGAIN:

Received: from mx.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk (smirnov.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk) by dr-mry-s01.landregistry.gsi.gov.uk
(Clearswift SMTPRS 5.2.3) with ESMTP id <[email address]> for <[email address]>;
Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:07:42 +0000
Received: from mail67.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.83])
by mx.hosting-w.gsi.gov.uk with smtp (Exim 4.33)
id 1L8aPG-0006mx-Fb
for [email address]; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:07:42 +0000
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: [email address]
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1228482461!35401992!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,landregistry.gsi.gov.uk
X-Originating-IP: [82.111.230.212]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.5 required=7.0 tests=BODY_RANDOM_LONG
Received: (qmail 3697 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2008 13:07:41 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212)
by server-5.tower-67.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2008 13:07:41 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[email address]>)
id 1L8aPF-0007eV-Ro
for [email address]; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:07:41 +0000
From: fred robinson <[email address]>
To: "Robertson, Andrew" <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Supply of Forged Title Maps
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-Id: <[email address]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:07:41 +0000
X-Source: Internet

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

As the Registry has in fact supplied members of the public with
forged title maps, what can an internal review achieve to have that
fact confirmed or denied.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

-----Original Message-----

Dear Mr Robinson

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have nothing further that I can add. If you are dissatisfied with
this response, then you must seek an internal review as explained
in my previous e-mail.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robertson Customer Service Manager

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson (Account suspended)

Dear Robertson, Andrew,

SEFTON COUNCIL SAY I AM VEXATIOUS FOR REQUESTING THEY CONFIRM OR DENY THEY OWNED TWO PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME "UNIQUE" TITLE NUMBER MA351603.

WHAT IS VEXATIOUS ABOUT CONFIRMING THAT THE COUNCIL HAD OWNERSHIPOF TWO PARCELS OF LAND UNDER THE SAME TITLE NUMBERS ?

THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE THAT IT IS THE COUNCIL THAT HAS AN OBSESSION WITH CONCEALING WHAT IT HAS ON RECORD AND IS THEREFORE VEXATIOUS BY, ITS AND THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS DEFINITIONS.

THE COPIES OF THE REGISTRATION OF THIS LAND I HAVE ARE AVAILABLE TOTHE COUNCIL FROM THE LAND REGISTRY AT LESS THAN THE STATUTORY LIMIT FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONFIRM MY REQUEST. THIS CAN BE DONE ON LINE IN A FEW MINUTES.

MY LONG HISTORY OF SIMILAR REQUESTS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN CONCEALING ITS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE REGISTRATION OF THIS LAND SINCE I FIRST QUESTIONED ITS OWNERSHIP WITH THE COUNCILS CEO, GRAHAM HEYWOOD, IN THE YEAR 2000.

MR HEYWOOD, WHO IS A BARRISTER AND KNOWS BETTER, AT THAT TIME,CONCEALED ITS OWNERSHIP AND COLLUDED WITH OTHER COUNCIL OFFICERS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO PREVENT THE OWNERSHIP BEING CONFIRMED DUE TO THE COUNCIL HAVING TO KEEP UP THE DECEPTION THAT THE COUNCIL WERE INDEMNIFIED FOR IT.

IN FACT THE COUNCIL HAD BEEN AWARE THAT IT HAD TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AT THE TIME OF MY INITIAL REPORT OF DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY IN 1994, SOME FOUR MONTHS AFTER ITS TRANSFER AND, WHILE THE MAISONETTES ON THE LAND WERE STILL BEING DEMOLISHED BY THE COUNCILS CONTRACTOR.

MR HEYWOOD THEN BECAME INVOLVED WITH THE DECEPTION OF THE DATE OF CONTRACT COMPLETION OF THE DEMOLITION CONTRACT.

IN FEBRUARY 1995 THE COUNCIL KNEW WHEN IT SENT MR FAWLEY TO VISIT ME THAT IT DID NOT OWN THE LAND AND, IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1996, WHEN AON QUESTIONED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WITH REGARD TO A "POSSIBLE INSURANCE CLAIM" FOR "WHAT IS NOW THE GABLE WALL OF 19 LIME GROVE", THE COUNCIL KNEW THAT CLAIM SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION OR ITS CONTRACTOR FAWLEY, SOMETHING THAT WAS STATED BY THEIR INSURERS IN MARCH 1996.

THE COUNCIL ALSO KNEW THAT THE DAMAGE REFERRED TO IT BY MY
SOLICITORS IN 1995 COULD NOT BE A CLAIM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF NONE EXISTING BUILDING AS STATED BY MR BARR TO OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL AND MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, BUT WAS IN FACT DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEMOLITION OF THE MAISONETTES.

IN FACT THE COUNCIL HAD BEEN AWARE OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF THE TWO PARCELS OF LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE GROVE SINCE 1977, UNLESS THE TITLE MAPS AND OFFICE COPIES OF ITS REGISTRATION TO THE COUNCIL AT BOOTLE AND SOUTHPORT TOWN HALLS, ARE ALL FORGERIES

I REMIND YOU THE COUNCIL PRETENDED TO BE INDEMNIFIED FOR THIS LAND, FROM APRIL 6TH 1994 WHEN I REPORTED DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY TO THE COUNCIL CAUSED BY THE DEMOLITION OF THE MAISONETTES, AND AFTER THIS DAMAGE WAS QUANTIFIED BY MY SURVEYOR, WHICH THEY ALSO KNEW.

THEN, ON MAY 1ST 2002 AFTER ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE WITHDREW THE PRETEND INDEMNITY AND WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR TO ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE THAT I HAD REPORTED DAMAGE TO THE COUNCIL IN APRIL 1994 THAT THEY HAD NOT REPORTED TO ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE IN BREACH OF THEIR CONTRACT, AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE MAY HAVE HAD TO PAY ME COMPENSATION.

MR HEYWOOD WAS FORCED TO ADMIT THAT THE CLAIM I HAD ALLEGEDLY MADE IN 1993 WAS UNFOUNDED AND THE LAND WAS NOT OWNED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME OF THE DAMAGE, NOR HAD IT BEEN SINCE JANUARY 24TH 1993 WHEN OWNERSHIP PASSED TO MARITIME WITH THE TRANSFER DOCUMENTS,DESPITE THE COUNCIL PROCESSING MY ALLEGED CLAIMS WITH ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE DURING ALL OF THAT NINE YEAR PERIOD.

A BIGGER QUESTION MARK HANGS OVER THE LAND REGISTRY WHO, AFTER ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND MR HEYWOOD CONFIRMED THE COUNCIL DID NOT OWN THE LAND, WROTE TO ME TELLING ME THAT THE NONE EXISTENT BUILDINGS "ADJOINING" 19 LIME GROVE - HAD IN FACT BEEN "ATTACHED"TO 19 LIME GROVE.

THE STATEMENT TO THE OMBUDSMAN BY MR BOWNES, THE COUNCIL'S LEGAL DIRECTOR, AND MR WILLIAMS, THE COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR REGARDING AN "ABUNDANTLY CLEAR CLAIM, AND A FORMAL CLAIM" MADE BY THE ALTERATION OF THE CONJUNCTION 'OR' TO 'AND' TO 'TOGETHER WITH', ARE FALLACIOUS.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Robertson, Andrew, Land Registry

I am now out of the office until the morning of Monday 2nd March. I will
not have access to my e-mails whilst I am away. I will respond to your
e-mail as soon as I can on my return.

If the matter is urgent and you need a response in my absence, please
contact either Nimish Patel at [email address] or Ian
Flowers at [email address]

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 Robertson, Andrew,

I REFER YOU TO A LETTER, CSM/ GENERAL ENQUIRY, TO MYSELF FROM THE BIRKENHEAD REGISTRIES DEPUTY CUSTOMER SERVICES MANAGER, RITA STEVENS, DATED MARCH 1ST 2006 STATING:

"I can confirm that the ownership details of LA45343 have not changed and the information you hold is correct."

I LOOK FORWARD TO A RESPONSE TO MY FOI REQUEST:

"Will you confirm or deny under the freedom of Information Act that
the Registry supplies forged maps to the public."

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO LA45343.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Jean James left an annotation ()

Jean James left an annotation ()

Suspected land registry fraud? http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/fraud-h...

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org