Dear Sir or Madam,

Will 'The Law Society' confirm or deny that it can resolve a complaints against a solicitor or barrister for professional misconduct by a none client including criminal offences.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

I await you determinations.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

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

Dear Bob Stanley,

Thanks

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS AND BARRISTERS:

Alleged “Complaints” about titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I SENT A DETAILED LETTER AND ‘CUT AND PASTED’ EVIDENCE OF FORGED LAND REGISTRY MAPPING OF TITLES LA45086, LA43343 AND MS350603 TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND FILED IT AT THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT STATING:

“It is my belief that this matter should be now be properly investigated by either the Police or the Serious Fraud Office as the Land Register is now unreliable.”

ON JULY 10TH 2006 THIS LETTER WAS RESPONDED TO ON BEHALF OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the report of falsified land records…the Department…has considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have responsibility for the issue raised in your letter…we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of Community Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON JULY 12TH 2006.

ON JULY 24TH 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO THE LAWYERS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ALTERING MY REPORT OF ALLEGED CRIME, TO A COMPLAINT BY STATING:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its remit. One of the teams lawyers will consider your complaint.”

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006 IN A LETTER (ACRT/MS 351603.A.081/DW) HEADED MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, TITLE MS351603, LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE SEAFORTH: THE AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM IN COVENTRY WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND PRESUMABLY THE FILED FORGED CUT AND PASTED MAPS THAT ACCOMPANIED IT:

“Your letter is considered to be a complaint…[the] Land Registry cannot look at a matter or overturn legal decisions made by Land Registry…my understanding from your letter is that your complaint is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some background to the current situation may prove useful…. The boundary you are querying is between your property…and what was formally 21 Lime Grove…the land nor the boundary in question has never been affected by title LA45343…in creating a title plan we are concerned with showing the general boundaries to the extent of the area within the title…the boundary shown on MS351603…is exactly the same as that which was shown on LA45086, that, in turn remains the same from the time of its first registration…title plans may be replaced and updated over the years for various reasons and, because title plans are always prepared on the latest Ordnance Survey detail…Ordnance Survey features will change from time to time depending on when the last edition of the title plan is prepared…I can say that nothing unusual has occurred with regard to either of these registered titles and their mapping…you will appreciate I find no basis for your complaint. This is the Land Registries definitive response to your complaint.”

FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY DENIED THE MAPPING THEY HAD PREPARED WAS FORGED.

ON AUGUST 14TH 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to this Department about structural defects regarding your property…the Department cannot get involved with individual cases or question a possible court decision.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your house. This has been passed to this department because of our responsibility for housing. Your remarks have been noted…I should point out that local authorities are elected autonomous bodies…if you are unhappy with the conduct of the local authority. You may wish to complain via their own complaints procedure…you may wish to take your case to the Local Government Ombudsman.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006 THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICES AT HEAD OFFICE, LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your copy letter dated 17 July 2006 to this office. However. I regret that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of Land Registry.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006 SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR. IN A LETTER COPIED TO THE COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT (PAW/RR) WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 3rd August to the Chief Planning Officer…[I] can confirm that the Council will not have provided any information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance Survey plan referred to.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 THE SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“The Council is unable to confirm any details in relation to THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” as requested…I would refer you to the letter of 12th February, 2001 from the Chief Executive Officer confirming that point. As you are aware, Mr George Barr, the Property Manager referred to in Maritime Housing Associations letter of 4th March 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable to take this matter forward.”

ON THE FORGED TRANSFER MAP COMPOSED OF TWO VERSIONS OF OS SJ 3396, DATED 1969/1978 (BOTH OF WHICH SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB”), THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE LAND REGISTRY BY MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION’S SOLICITORS IN 1994, SHOWED THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” HAD BEEN ERASED FROM THEM BOTH TO CREATE THEIR TRANSFER MAP WHICH, AFTER TAXATION WAS SENT TO THE REGISTRY.

THE “LATEST” OFFICIAL COPY OF OS SJ3396 WAS DATED DECEMBER 13TH 1993 AND SHOWED NO NIB WALL ON IT, NOR DID THE 1987 EDITION. THUS, IN LAW, MARITIME DID NOT BUY A PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE FROM SEFTON COUNCIL AS THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE “THE NIB” DID NOT FORM PART OF THEIR AGGREED CONTRACT TO DO SO.

ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 THE LAND REGISTRY DREW A TITLE MAP COMPRISING OF OS SJ 1969/1984, SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU. THAT TITLE NUMBER IS MS351603

THERE ARE TWO LETTTERS COPIED TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME DATED MARCH 4TH 1999, ONE TO ME AND, ONE REGARDING FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION. I REPRODUCE COMMENTS FROM BOTH BELOW NUMBERED ONE AND 2:

THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE TWO LETTERS TO MR BARR FROM MARITIME AND THE COUNCILS CEO’S LETTER TO ME REFERRED TO ABOVE BY THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR STATE:

1. MARITIME TO ME “You should be aware…this Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton Council. On the evidence I have it would appear…the “nib” wall was removed during the demolition contract”

2. MARITIME TO MR BARR: “I have spoken to Bill Fawley who cannot even recall the nib wall, and therefore, we must assume that it was not in existence when we took possession.”

THE LETTTER FROM SEFTONS CEO’S LETTER TO ME DATED FEBRUARY 12TH 2001 AROSE FROM A COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN on February 6th 2001, AND A LETTER TO HIM DATED JANUARY 31ST 2001 FROM ME WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON THE BASIS OF FURTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME BY MARITIME REGARDING INDEPENDENT DEMOLITION BY SEFTON COUNCIL AFTER POSSESSION OF THE KEPLER STREET SITE BY MARITIME - THAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1994 - I ASKED THE CEO on January 31st 2001. CAPITALISATION ADDED:

“Did Sefton Council have any legal liability for alleged damage caused to my property during demolition by their contractors which occurred after possession by Maritime housing Association Did the Council carry out any independent demolition…SEFTON COUNCIL AND THEIR INSURERS have told me the demolition contract…ran from 17/1/94.

ON FEBRUARY 9TH 2001 SETONS SENIOR CLAIMS MANAGER SENT A TEN PAGE ‘FAX’ TO THE COUNCILS INSURERS STATING:

“Further your phone call – letter for you. The 31/ I received the rest copies Tech Svs have. They are still trying to clarify internally when the actual hand over was as requested in Finance memo to Tech Svs on 8/11 (you have copy faxed on 8/11):

ANNOTATION ON THIS ‘FAX’ CONTINUES.

I need also 8/11 letter from Tech Svs….I think is TS had sent the letter we asked them to this would be over from our point of view and we didn’t need to ??? to Mr R.”

ON FEBRUARY 12TH 2001 THE COUNCIL’S CEO RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:

“It is not possible to answer your first question, as Legal liability for alleged damage is assessed and dealt with by claim to the Council’s insurers, a path that was offered to you but you have declined to take…the land transfer by deed to Maritime Housing Association took place on 24 December 1993…demolition work is recorded as commencing 24 January 1994, with Practical Completion on 31 March 1994. This is the date beyond which my Technical Services Department say our responsibility ends…and contractor on site between the dates July and September 1994 were not employed by the Council. The site at Kepler Street was cleared before 14th March 1994.”

ACCORDING TO MARITIME, THIS “CLEARANCE” INCLUDED THE NIB WALL AND, THEREFORE BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE AND, THE TRANSFER MAP. OS SJ3396 DATED 1987 AND 1993, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRY, AND MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION BOTH HAD COMPELLING EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE, THE NIB WALL, WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON AUGUST 31ST 1994 WHEN, THE REGISTRY CREATED THEIR FORGERY OF TITLE MS351603 BASED ON OS SJ3396 SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE, THE SCREEN WALL’ BETWEEN 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE, WHICH BY ALL ACCOUNTS HAD BY THAT TIME BEEN DEMOLISHED.

SECTION 67 OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT STATES THAT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR ANY PART OF – THE REGISTER OF TITLE…ANY DOCUMENT WHICH IS REFERRRED TO IN THE REGISTRATION OF TITLE…IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE ORIGINAL.

I HAVE A TITLE MAP SHOWING THE PARTY BOUNDARY STRUCTURE IN SITU PREPARED BY THE REGITRY ON AUGUST 31ST 1994, AFTER IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND REGISTERED TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY STATING THAT 19 AND 21 LIME GROVE WERE ONCE ATTACHED, WHEN THEIR OWN MAPPING ON TITLE LA45343 DATED 1966 SHOWS THAT IT NEVER WAS .

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RELY ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTATION AND THEREFORE, NOT POSSIBLE FOR A COMPLAINT BY MYSELF TO RESOLVE THE MATTERS ARISING FROM TITLE MS 351603.

SEFTON COUNCIL HAVE ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH A TERRIER MAP INDICATING THEY OWN THE LAND UNDER TITLE MS351603.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

You seem to spend an inordinately long time out of the office. I look forward to your return and response.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

ITS NOW JANUARY 23RD 2009.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

YOUR E MAIL AND DOWNLOADS BELOW :

Bob Stanley
The Law Society

23 January 2009

RE: Freedom of Information requests Refs:

FOI/BS118,

FOI/BS/119,

FOI/BS/121,

FOI/BS/145.

txt 0K Download

Freedom of Information request - Malicious Communication Act.txt

2K Download

Freedom of Information request - Law Societies advice to solicitors regarding money laundering by their clients.txt

2K Download

Freedom of Information request - The words 'and' and 'or' and 'together with'.txt

2K Download

Freedom of Information request - The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers.txt

2K Download

Information requests Refs: FOI/BS/118, FOI/BS/119, FOI/BS/121.txt

2K Download

RE: Freedom of Information request Ref: FOI/BS/145.txt

3K Download

Dear Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your email.

I cannot add anything to the email I sent to you on 15th January
(attached). Please let me know if you would like me to refer any of your
requests to the Freedom of Information Adjudicator in accordance with
section 17 of the Law Society's Freedom of Information Code of Practice
(link below).

YOUR DOWNLOADS"

1.

Not Found The requested URL /request/5023/response/13997/attach/2/RE: Freedom of Information requests Refs: FOI/BS118, FOI/BS/119, FOI/BS/121, FOI/BS/145.txt was not found on this server.

2.

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6619.12
Received: from mail169.messagelabs.com ([85.158.138.179]) by srvint26.internal.lawsociety.int with MicrosoftSMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:25:20 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Received: (qmail 22028 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2008 00:25:20 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212) by server-5.tower-169.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Nov 2008 00:25:20 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <[email address]>) id 1L1rvb-0001rH-Sg for [email address]; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:25:19 +0000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Malicious Communication Act
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:25:19 -0000
Message-ID: <[email address]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information request - Malicious Communication Act
Thread-Index: AclISvnIcujn7cs5R2Wl/tkkVMButg==
From: "fred robinson" <[email address]>
To: "Information Compliance" <[email address]>
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3.

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6619.12
Received: from mail179.messagelabs.com ([85.158.139.35]) by srvint26.internal.lawsociety.int with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:19:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Received: (qmail 2597 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2008 00:19:28 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212) by server-12.tower-179.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Nov 2008 00:19:28 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <[email address]>) id 1L1rpw-0001pe-Et for [email address]; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:19:28 +0000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Law Societies advice to solicitors regarding money laundering by their clients
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:19:28 -0000
Message-ID: <[email address]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information request - Law Societies advice to solicitors regarding money laundering by their clients
Thread-Index: AclISig1jLpNQO3PT2mYg1rr1GQUhQ==
From: "fred robinson" <[email address]>
To: "Information Compliance" <[email address]>
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=

4.

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6619.12
Received: from mail178.messagelabs.com ([85.158.139.19]) by srvint26.internal.lawsociety.int with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Received: (qmail 4914 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212) by server-14.tower-178.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <[email address]>) id 1LDgOk-0004Yg-Lz for [email address]; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 +0000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Freedom of Information request - The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Message-ID: <[email address]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information request - The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers
Thread-Index: Aclh5pYRyYfwKcuQTQaP+IbNs2G8gw==
From: "fred robinson" <[email address]>
To: "Information Compliance" <[email address]>
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=

5.

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6619.12
Received: from mail178.messagelabs.com ([85.158.139.19]) by srvint26.internal.lawsociety.int with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Received: (qmail 4914 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Received: from sandwich.ukcod.org.uk (HELO sandwich.ukcod.org.uk) (82.111.230.212) by server-14.tower-178.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Received: from foi by sandwich.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <[email address]>) id 1LDgOk-0004Yg-Lz for [email address]; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 +0000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Freedom of Information request - The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:32:14 -0000
Message-ID: <[email address]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information request - The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers
Thread-Index: Aclh5pYRyYfwKcuQTQaP+IbNs2G8gw==
From: "fred robinson" <[email address]>
To: "Information Compliance" <[email address]>
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=

6. Not Found The requested URL /request/5023/response/13997/attach/7/Information requests Refs: FOI/BS/118, FOI/BS/119, FOI/BS/121.txt was not found on this server.

7.

Not Found The requested URL /request/5023/response/13997/attach/8/RE: Freedom of Information request Ref: FOI/BS/145.txt was not found on this server.

DO NOT ENABLE ME TO DETERMINE A RESPONSE.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Claim W215732 January 1st 1994

In 1893: 19 Lime Grove was built on the North side of Lime Grove, as the end terrace house of nine standing next to a large detached house numbered 21 Lime Grove.

19 Lime Grove was a three bedroom end of terrace house with an outside toilet. This toilet was situated some 4 metres from the rear of its kitchen and attached to the Rear Boundary Wall of 19 Lime Grove. This rear boundary wall ran east to west along an alleyway between Lime Grove and Hawarden Grove.

Looking at 19 Lime Grove from the front, its gable wall ran North to South and formed its boundary wall with 21 Lime Grove - the large detached House.

In the 1960's: Numerous streets to the east of 19 Lime Grove, including 21 Lime Grove were demolished, the land cleared, and maisonettes and high rise flats built on it. In lieu of 21 Lime Grove, maisonette block 21 to 39 Lime Grove was built some 5 metres from the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove. To achieve this, as Lime grove runs downhill, the level of the land along 19 Lime Groves gable wall was reduced to level the site and build the adjacent maisonette block.

The support this land had previously given to 19 Lime Groves gable wall appears to have been considered important enough to replaced it with two Party Boundary Structures in the form of what are known as 'the screen wall' and 'old footings' these were constructed abutting the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove, presumably by Sefton’s contractor Messrs Mathews and Mumby Ltd.

The 'old footings' (a misnomer as they 'footed' nothing) extend the length of the gable wall between The 'screen wall' that extended between and abutted (around the centre) the gables of 19 Lime Grove and (to the front of) the maisonettes 21 to 39.

Prior to 1972: The outside toilet in 19 Lime Groves yard was demolished and the soil pipe to the underground drains, within the yard of 19 Lime Grove that had served the outside toilet was sealed off and buried some 250mm below ground level.

In 1983 I applied for a grant from Sefton and a surveyor from 'The Vis Johnson Partnership' inspected.

Regarding the gable wall this surveyor noted it had a bulge in it and was not sure if it required rebuilding or not. He recommended the gable wall be investigated by a structural engineer and recommended Mr Kevin Smith, a structural engineer, to me.

I engaged Mr Smith and Mr Smith surveyed the gable wall on June 5th 1983, his report states:

“The Property…the end house of a terrace block…there are cracks visible to the gable and the movement appears to be horizontal only… there are cracks visible at the junction of the ceilings and the gable at both ground and first floor levels…the problem would appear to be a lack of horizontal restraint to the tall and slender gable wall. The original construction made no provision to tie the gable wall to the structure at floor and roof levels…the gable wall itself appears sound…there are no signs of cracked bricks…it is not possible to determine whether any movement is still taking place…it is unlikely that any movement will continue once the strapping work has been done…there is no indication of vertical movement as a result of inadequate foundations.”

There is a gully that drains surface water into the sewers leading from the alleyway that runs along the length of the rear boundary walls of Lime Grove with grids situated in it. A grid leading to these drains is located some 500mm from the rear gateway to 19 Lime Grove abutting my boundary wall.

As the land is unadopted this gully and drains are not maintained and this had caused subsidence in the alleyway which, in turn had caused the boundary walls of 15, 17 and 19 Lime Grove to lean into the rear alleyway.

Around March 1985 Sefton, in the form of Mr McDonnagh notified me Sefton had ordered the demolition of the rear boundary walls of 15, 17 and 19 Lime Grove - due to their 'condition'.

This notification, on a small green card was posted through my front door [Wednesday] when I was out.

Two days after Mr McDonnaghs notification to me of Seftons intentions [Friday]. Sefton performed the demolition of the boundary wall by pushing it over into the yard of 19 Lime Grove. This demolition was done when I was not at home and resulted in the locked gate of the rear boundary wall into the alleyway being torn from its hinges and the lid of my refuse bin being destroyed.

With regard to the damage caused to the rear gate and bin lid, I made an insurance claim against Sefton and was paid some £37.00 by their then Manchester based insurers M & M.

This creates an insurance claim record of a claim by myself concerning, but not for, the demolition of a boundary wall due to its condition.

It also acknowledges the liability of Sefton for damage caused by the demolition of the rear boundary wall. I subsequently had the rear boundary wall rebuilt at no cost to Sefton.

The demolition of this boundary wall had ruptured the underground drains under the yard of 19 Lime Grove by impacting on the shallow soil pipe from the demolished outside toilet and caused damage that remained latent until 1987 when the drains began to 'back up' and eventually partially collapse, this caused subsidence to the rear yard, principally at the boundary wall. In 1987 I had the drains repaired at no cost to Sefton. The boundary wall was unaffected.

In 1984/5 Sefton revamped the maisonettes and proposed to demolish the party boundary structure the 'screen wall'.

After I had enquired to Sefton on site about their evident intention to demolish the screen wall Sefton 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.

In Early 1991 A claim against Sefton was contemplated by myself and I engaged solicitors, David Phillips and Partners who obtained legal aid for me and, with regard to:

A letter of instruction:

Preliminary advice from counsel:

A statement from myself:

Instructed and had my property surveyed by Mr Alan Jones, a chartered surveyor. Mr Jones noted in his report:

“Mr Robinson explained that at some time after the Improvement grant work there was a difficulty at the back of his home in that part of the boundary wall was demolished. Thereafter, difficulties were found with the drainage system and drains were re-laid. The rear yard boundary wall was reconstructed. I regard those incidents as quite important in the catalogue that has effected 19 Lime Grove…other incidents have occurred during the history of this house…when it was first constructed it butted up to but, clearly did not form part of a bigger and more substantial house which was immediately to the right or along the east side of Lime Grove. That house has long since been demolished and in lieu there is now a development of flats and maisonettes owned by Sefton MBC. The gable wall of 19 Lime Grove faces toward those properties. In part there is a screen wall running between the gable of No 19 and the corner of the maisonettes. Evidently, Sefton, in a renovation process for their properties, intended to demolish that screen wall. However at Mr Robinson’s request a nib was left, for it was giving some support and stability to the gable wall. I have to say a sensible proposition. One can see at low level toward the rear, that is beyond the screen wall, where there is a concrete upstand and concrete apron against the gable wall…those concrete sections evidently shield and shelter stepped footings to the rear section (beyond the cellar area. The exposure might well have come about at the time the maisonettes were constructed by the winning of the land and change in levels, that would of course be before the purchase by Mr Robinson and his interest in No 19…between the front right hand corner of the house and the footwalk there is a boundary wall. That is in 225mm brickwork rising to a height of about 2 metres and capped by heavy concrete coping. It seems the wall probably replaces and had been extended from an earlier wall. There is block bonding between the red brick quoin of the original front elevation of the house and the common brick gable wall. One can see where this boundary has dragged away from the main structure. In effect, it has rotated on its axis at the point of intersection with the quoin to the front right hand corner. In so doing, it has dragged away and opened up at joints there…Mr Robinson has discovered that fractures are beginning to appear, (hairline fractures), in particular to the outrigger portion of the property…notwithstanding the bow which one can clearly see to the gable wall and notwithstanding the presence there of various plates and ties that pass through, one cannot see anything sinister occurring at this moment to the main portion of the gable…however, there is an old tie which shows in the end of the terrace to the right of the masonry and thee is a pronounced bow of the brickwork at the front quoin. How old is that bow? I would suggest it has been there many years…it would have been ideal in 1983 or 1984 to suggest that the gable wall be reconstructed in a truly vertical plane and upon new foundations. It is not necessarily the case of course that underpinning of that gable wall for the outrigger would have been considered necessary at the time. That could be the case whether or not the bulge in the gable wall was as great as it is at this moment. A bulge does not necessarily denote defective foundations. Moreover a situation obtains where there must be different levels of foundation. The cellar section has walls which go down some 1500mm below the remainder and it is highly unlikely that because of the change of levels, there would have been deep foundations to the back section of the gable or indeed the outrigger. (for it is borne out by the presence of the concrete apron to part of the rear section of the gable / flank wall

On May 14th 1992: Mr Jones rang my solicitors’ Mr Skinner, regarding his report of November 8th 1991 and a conversation they had had previously. Mr Jones stated to him:

“Mr Robinson forwarded to me direct a copy of Kevin Smith Associates report…dated 5th June 1983. I also received (directly from Mr Robinson), an account for repairing a broken drain which account is dated 23rd February 1987 and is in the sum of £290. Thereafter you kindly took up with Sefton MBC whether or not the authority could make its file available. Sefton has now replied to indicate the file was destroyed some time ago…the situation remains whereby movement seems to be continuing to the house. The only source of finance that seems likely to be available to put right any difficulties would be that of Mr Robinson’s own pocket, for I cannot see on the basis of the present evidence contributions might be received from any other source.”

Around January 9th 1993: David Phillips and Partners, my solicitors, obtained a second counsels advice from Mr Graham Woods whose advice states:

“I was first instructed in this matter in the early part of 1991, proceedings were contemplated against Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, who had supervised grant – aided repair work to Mr Robinson’s terrace dwellinghouse…I indicated in my preliminary advice that it was impossible to give any opinion as to the merits of the proposed claim in negligence, assuming an duty of care could be established without the benefit of a detailed history and an engineers report. Mr Jones has subsequently provided that report…and a further short report in May of this year. I am required to consider the merits of the proposed claim for the purpose of the Legal Aid Authority…when Mr Jones first reported he did not have the benefit of Kevin Smiths report Mr Smiths liability was limited to the provision of restraint to all walls…undoubtedly Mr Robinsons property is suffering from subsidence. It is ongoing…ultimately, remedial works by means of underpinning will be required. The issue of any negligence action is a simple one. Was such subsidence evident to a significant degree in 1983/1984…it would seem that Mr Jones has considered this aspect comprehensively, and is unable to advise that the present condition did not obtain when works were undertaken in 1983/1984 and that they could not have been speculate by Sefton.”

On January 15th 1993: My legal aid was discharged on the basis of the above advice.

On June 10th 1993: Sefton informed me of a proposed development on the land adjacent to my property known as 'The Kepler Street site'. I went to Seftons Planning Department and viewed the ‘layout drawings’ for the proposed development

This work was seemingly to include the demolition of the Party Boundary Structures. No other party connected with the development was mentioned in the letter of June 10th 1993 and I took it that no other party was involved and that it was a Sefton Council project.

On August 3rd 1993: I wrote to Sefton stating:

"Re my recent visit to your planning Department about the existing nib wall and old footings at the side gable of my property, can you inform me of any action the Council would take about the above, should the development go ahead."

On August 10th 1993: Sefton’s Mr Louhran responded stating:

“From your letter it is not possible to ascertain the reason behind your enquiry. Please contact my assistant Mrs P Carruthers in my development and control section who will be able to assist you further.”

On September 8th 1993 I wrote to Sefton, clearly under the impression it was they who were to develop the land, stating:

"I refer to your letter dated 10 August 1993. Your plans show no nib wall or old footings adjacent to my gable wall, do you intend to remove these when you develop the site or do you intend to alter your plans to show their presence."

On September 16th 1993: The above letter was sent to: the Director of Property Services, Pavilion Buildings, Southport, marked for the attention of Sefton’s Mr Barr who was the Principle Architect on the project at Kepler Street.

On October 1st 1993: Sefton’s Mr Barr wrote to me stating:

“I appreciate your concern about your gable wall, ‘nib’ wall and associated footings. May I reassure you that when the site is redeveloped adjacent to your property, there should be no interference with these features. The layout drawing which was provided for consultation purposes is of such a small scale that the details to which you refer would not be shown.”

On March 22nd 2006: In claim 5LV55490, Robinson v Aon Corporate Mr Craig Sayer, a lawyer employed by Sefton’s Claims Managers, the Aon Corporation, in claim 5LV55490, Robinson v Aon sent, to the Liverpool County Court, and copied to me a letter in response to my application for details of the basis of claim(s) W215732 dated 1993 from Aon for “the demolition of none existent buildings in the 1960’s” and, for an “incident” dated January 1st 1994. Mr Sayer verified and stated the following:

“The incident date of 1 January 1994, which is a referred to is used for Aon’s and the insured’s (Sefton’s) purposes to ascertain which policy year any claim attaches to or may attach to at a later date. There is no specific incident that took place on the 1st January 1994 and this may account for the claimant’s confusion. Similarly, the date of 1st January 1994 does not refer to a specific claim as it is an internal date used by Aon and Sefton.

Correspondence was received prior to 1st January 1994 from the claimant, i.e. his letters of 3 August and undated letter received by Sefton on 9 September 1993…it is not clear why the date of 1 January 1994 should be amended in the light of the information set out above or why the Claimant wishes to have the date amended.”

NB This document is an amendment of a document entitled “Report of Crime by Sefton MBC” dated July 17th 2006 that was hand delivered to Merseyside Police, Filed at Liverpool county court, and delivered by hand to Sefton Council at Balliol House Bootle, who, stamped each page of it as received on July 17th 2006.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

I REFER YOU TO THE APHORISM:

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

FOR THE MONEY READ THE LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly those structures belonged to Crosby Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 13th 1993: Planning Permission for:

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

Was granted to Maritime Housing Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first dated October 1969 – showing the screen wall

The Second dated 1973 - showing the screen wall

The third dated 1978 – showing the screen wall

The fourth dated 1989 – showing no screen wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 2, of the transfer document it is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And further, with another twist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This title map is marked: Crown copyright 1975.

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

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear BOB STANLEY

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

I am writing to request an internal review of The Law Society's handling of my FOI request 'The Law Societies ability to deal with complaints of misconduct by none clients of solicitors and barristers'.

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

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I REFER YOU TO MY LETTER TO THE IC BELOW DATED NOVEMBER 6TH 2006:

FAO Ms Howkins Your Ref: ENDO124896

Thank you for your letter dated November 2nd 2006 received today. I trust that your reply is also with regard to my letter to you dated October 21st 2006 and trust that the Commission has never made an assessment regarding any information regarding Sefton and myself other than that referred to in my complaint under your reference 03-36599/06/AD which, for the absence of doubt, was solely with regard to data from 1994 which is, according to the numbered documents Sefton have averred in evidence to the court was sent to the Commission, and is evidently, one document numbered 17 in the list on numbered documents I sent to the Commission on July 5th 2006, and who's disclosure has been refused to both myself and Liverpool County Court by Sefton.

I now attach relevant parts of a "Defence to Claim and Reply to Further and Better Particulars" - which is recorded on the court computer as a "Defence" - issued by Seftons Legal Director dated July 21st 2004 in claim LV306271 I made against Sefton in 2003: With regard to the statement made on page 4 of the "Defence":

"The list of documents that the claimant refers to and the numbering relate to documents was put together by the Council's Data Protection Officer for the purpose of responding to the Information Commissioner...the Data Commissioner has subsequently ruled that the Council does not hold a relevant filing system and therefore has no obligation to provide further information to the claimant."

Will you confirm the above was the Commissions advice to Sefton in 2004 and, will you also confirm that the data from 1994 was, in the opinion of the commission, not held in a relevant filing system and, that this was concluded by the Commission with reference to the "Durant" ruling by the Commission.

You will note that an insurance claim referenced W215732 is stated in page 1 of the "Defence" to be a claim received from "Rowlins Huddock Hall," but at page 4 of the "Defence" was a claim: "Received from solicitors acting for the claimant on 29th November 1995".

On November 12th 1999 in a memo between Seftons Property Manager and Director of Technical Services. Claim W215732 is identified as a claim made by myself against the Council in 1993 regarding the "Work carried out previously...involving the removal of some dwelling at the end of the terrace in which Mr Robinsons dwelling had formally been in a mid terrace location." as confirmed by the attached letter to Maritime Housing Association from Sefton dated February 1999 and a letter to myself from Maritime dated October 22nd 1999, seemingly with regard to a claim arising from 2 letter from myself to Sefton date August and September 1993 numbered 15 and 16.

But, Rollin Hudig Hall - referred to in the Legal Directors "Defence" as Rowlins Hudock Hall - identify claim W215732 on February 20th 1996 as regarding a claim that did not arise in 1993.

But was the attached "new claim" referenced W215732 dated February 20th 1996 which the first advice of claim W215732 and was to be referred to Maritimes contractors, Fawley Construction regarded:

"Subsequent problems experienced by Mr Robinson arising during and following the redevelopment of the land adjacent to his house would...appear to be a matter for the Developer and / or Contractor."

I attach Rollin Hudig Hall's letter to my solicitors dated March 20th 1996 referenced W215732 showing they had no understanding of claim W215732 and refer to the work "carried out on what is now the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove."

The redevelopment referred to was that which occurred between January 1994 and September 1995 as stated in paragraph 1 of the attached November 12th 1999 memo, at that time, as the attached OS map SJ3396 dated December 13th 1993 proves: "removal of some dwellings" between 19 and 21 Lime Grove could not give rise to a claim in 1993 as to do so 19 and 21 Lime Grove would have to be adjoined and the party wall between them would have had to have existed to become the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove which, as shown on OS SJ3396 dated around 1890 - marked in Orange - between it and 21 Lime Grove - marked in Blue - was always a gable wall. Claim W215732 is averred in sworn attached evidence to the court on March 22nd 2006 by Seftons Claims managers, AON, to be a claim made by myself against Sefton with regard to my 2 letters to Sefton dated August and September 1993 and which were provided to Maritime in February 1999 by Sefton as Maritimes agents. Clearly not all of this information regarding the date of insurance claim W215732 can be true.

Is there any way that I can have it amended under the Data Protection or Freedom of Information Acts and the true basis, if any, of claim W215732 disclosed to me as the court has a restraining order against me preventing me applying to the court regarding claim W215732 which it upholds.

I attach Seftons averment to me on August 2003 and my solicitors comments regarding claim W215732.
Council Tax Computer Data

With regard to Council Tax Computer Records I attach 3 copy letters to Seftons Finance Director regarding 2 liability ordered it has obtained against me which are still in force, do the Council have to provide their computer records to me or amend them with regard to their own computer records that show I did not owe the alleged unpaid Council Tax under The Data Protection Act.

NB The court has a restraining order against me preventing me applying to the court regarding Council Tax which it upholds and Sefton aver are criminal matters but which, the Police aver they are civil matters. Sefton aver in the attached letter dated August 11th 2004 that the Council cannot withdraw a liability order and "full jurisdiction lies with the magistrates court", the magistrates court and the Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Globe, do not agree.

I also attach 2 responses from Merseyside Police dated June 3rd and July 13th 2005 with regard to the full extent of my request for information of their investigation into crimes regarding my Council Tax liabilities after perusing my Council Tax records and interviewing a member of Sefton councils staff, that the conclusion of that investigation was that the matter was a civil one.

Sefton were informed by the Benefit Agency on September 25th 2001 that my former partner Ms M Bruce had moved out of my property and, as the attached Council memo dated October 8th 2001 and Tax Bill addressed at her new address proves, Sefton knew on October 8 2001 that she had become liable for Council Tax at her new address, despite this knowledge, Sefton assessed my Council Tax Benefit on October 8th 2001 with regard to my joint income with Ms Bruce as the attached Benefit notice dated October 8th 2001 proves.

NB I will copy this letter and your letter of November 2nd 2006 to;

Liverpool County Court FAO Judge Fitzgerald under claim LV306271:

Sefton Councils Legal Director:

Chief Constable Merseyside Police:

Bootle Magistrates Court.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

FOR INFORMATION:

FAO Judge Fitzgerald Claim 6LV50680 and 5LV53314

The Legal Secretary to the Law Offices
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London
SW1E 6JP

Dear Sir or Madam

Request Under CPR 39.8.2 5 (i) and (ii) – Claim 5LV53314 Robinson v Maritime Housing Association

With regard to the above request and further correspondence sent to you, and the Defendant solicitors, I have received the enclosed letter regarding a Part 8 Claim, 6LV50690, requiring no defence and which was issued and served on February 3rd 2006 but, not acknowledged, however, the Defendant solicitor evidently now seeks to apply for a civil restraining order on December 13th 2007 in regard to this claim on the basis, inter alia, of his own rejected application in claim 5LV53314 dated July 29th 2005, which was rejected by the court on August 1st 2005 on the basis that judgement had been obtained against his client by myself.

Clearly this application is unfounded, an abuse of process, and should not be heard on December 13th 2007 as it has been struck out and costs awarded against me with regard to it. This being so, no further application can be made regarding it to restrain me in it. The Defendant solicitors act as if Judge Fitzgerald is their trained poodle, in court in my claim only to do tricks for them at their suggestion.

I also enclose a filed Freedom of Information request to Sefton Council regarding the ownership of land and liability for an alleged claim against the Council by myself dated 1993 and January 17th 1994 (which is fraudulent) for alleged damage to 19 Lime Grove in the 1960’s, prior to my occupation of it, by the (impossible) demolition of none existent buildings which alleged claim, was known to the Defendant from at least February 1999 as a claim made by myself in 1993 and is relied on in the Defendants defence as a claim made by myself when I allegedly lived in 9,11,or 13 Lime Grove, i.e., a “mid terrace location”, despite the evidence filed on February 2nd 2006 proving with OS maps from the 1850’s that no such adjoinment had ever existed - and therefore, the claim W215732 dated 1993 could not be the ‘font’ of any damage to 19 Lime Grove - and therefore, destroying Sefton Councils and Aon Corporations (verified) version of claim W215732 as being dated 1993 and January 1st 1994 and clearly based on the fallacy that 19 and 21 Lime Grove had been adjoined when I had lived in a “mid terrace location” in Lime Grove. I also enclose two letters from Maritime dated September 28th and October 5th 1999 (bold Added) in which they aver that:

“In March 1st 1994 when Fawley Construction took possession of the site, demolition work was still being undertaken by Sefton Council…up until September 1994, so far as we were aware the site was under the control of Sefton Council, who between July and September were not acting on behalf of this Association…Sefton acted as this Associations Agents…in that they were appointed by us to oversee and look after out interests while the houses were being built. Their activities would have included control of the way the contractors operated…unless Fawley Construction actually demolished your “nib” wall, they could not be held responsible as there was physical demolition of the maisonette blocks still going on after March 1994…it is not my perogative to pass the liability for the demolition of your wall onto another party…I accept that I have access to files and records that you do not…those same files and records can throw no further light on the matter…this Association is not responsible…I notice what appears to be…a newly built pier attached to your wall or an old pier that has been repointed…I would question who constructed or repointed the brick pier…my records clearly indicate that Maritime were not responsible Sefton, as our agents, are responsible for controlling building operations on our behalf, but as I have already said, demolition was still taking place up till September 1994. Which had nothing to do with Maritime. In accepting the dates for demolition span a 3 month period…”

Maritimes letter of September 28th 1999 was in response to my letter to them dated September 20th 1999 (bold added), which stated:

“Since I last wrote to you I have received from Fawley the date the photographs of my gable end were taken as 14/9/94, as this is after the first week in September 1994 given by Fawley as the date building operations began, it is clear that the photographs were not taken "prior to redevelopment" as stated by you in your letter dated 15/6/99 and as such have no value except to prove that the wall had been demolished by that date. You have also stated that the nib wall was not in existence after "extensive enquiries" with both your staff and builders when you took possession of the site (14/3/94) this has proven not to be the case evidenced by photographs taken by Sefton Council in July 1994. I have had a letter from Mr Barr of Sefton Council dated 12/10/99 who states "my records indicate that the date of contract completion work was 31st March 1994". In your letter of 5/10/99 you state "demolition was still taking place up 'til September 1994, which had nothing to do with Maritime". In your letter of 4/3/99 you state "this Association took possession of a cleared site, following demolition by Sefton Council". In the light of the above are you saying that after you took possession of a cleared site in March 1994 further demolition took place up until September 1994 and specifically between July 1994 when the nib wall was photographed by Sefton and 14th September 1994 when it had been demolished even though you know of the demolition you don't know who demolished what, or why, and it had nothing to do with Maritime or Sefton who on 28/9/99 you state up until September 1994, as far as you are aware, the site was under the control of and who at the time between July and September 1994 were not acting on behalf of this association.”

Clearly this “3 month period” period differs from the six-month – March to September – period that Judge Fitzgerald found for the demolition of the nib wall. Nor does it correspond with the enclosed version of events sent to me on August 8th 2001 by Sefton Council’s Ms Swale, nor does it correspond with the enclosed letter from GTB Demolition Ltd dated September 13th 2000 averring the nib wall was in situ on April 21st 1994, and most certainly does not correspond with any demolition after April 21st 1994 as by then demolition was supposedly completed: You should also note that the statement by Maritime that Sefton controlled their contractors “building operations” is unfounded, as is the comment in paragraph one on page two (bold added) that:

“I can find no record or evidence of who demolished your wall.”

As the nib wall did not belong to me but to Maritime and is evidently the wall referred to by Judge Fitzgerald as being demolished between March and September 1994 in concert with Maritime. No wonder the Defendant solicitors have requested that Judge Fitzgerald hear their application in claim 6LV50690 on December 13th 2007.

On October 22nd 1999 Maritime wrote me the enclosed letter in response to a letter written to them by myself on October 21st 1999 (bold added), which stated:

“By now you should have had my letter of yesterday and I hope for a reply as clear as the one relating to building operations and photographs, to recap. I wish to know not when Fawley Construction commenced building operations but when they first moved onto the site to erect fencing and have materials delivered, both of which are evident on their photographs of my gable end, unless this was done between the 12th and 14th September. To answer your Question about my residency, yes I was in residency during July to September and if you care to tell me the day the nib wall was demolished I may be able to tell you what I was doing that day but am unable to account for every day during that period. If I had been home on that day you are correct to assume I could have ascertained who demolished the nib wall. By the nature of your questions you seem to accept that the nib wall was demolished between the taking of the photographs by Sefton Council and Fawley Construction which brings the time period down to about ten weeks, even less it you take into account the photocopy I sent you, taken as it was after the ones taken by Sefton Council, do you agree.”

I also refer you to the enclosed correspondence with Ms Swale of Sefton Council dated June 19th and July 4th 2001 and further correspondence regarding her averment on August 8th 2001 – copied to Royal & SunAlliance – dated; 6th and 31st August 2001, 1st, and 22nd October 2001: and her response’s dated; October 18th and 22nd 2001. NB Ms Swales signature is pp the Councils Finance Director Mr Yates and there are two versions of it.

Finally I most particularly refer you to two without prejudice letters between Maritime’s CEO and myself dated July 9th and 11th 2001respectively which were copied to Maritime’s solicitor Mr Hayhurst at Bell Lamb & Joynson and, who subsequently, seemingly as the senior partner of 147 Law, Maritimes solicitors and, with the knowledge or constructive knowledge of the above, refused on Maritimes behalf to enter into ADR with me.

I also enclose evidence that from November 25th 2005 the court knew I was returning correspondence from the Defendant solicitor to him regarding CPR 23PD.11.1 filed on; November 29th 2005, December 6th and 8th 2005, January 4th 11th and 26th 2006: yet did not send me any filed documents or applications from the Defendant solicitor.

This letter will filed at Liverpool County Court FAO Judge Fitzgerald and be copied to Howarth Goodman to utterly refute any locus standi they have in the matter, and to Bell Lamb & Joynson.

Dated December 3rd 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

I REFER YOU TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JULY 5TH 2006 AND JULY 12TH 2007.

ON JULY 5TH 2006 I WROTE AND FILED AT COURT A LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENTITLED “REPORT OF FALSIFIED LAND RECORDS.” DETAILING WITH COPIES, HOW THE MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD TO MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AS KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, HAD BEEN CONVEYED AND REGISTERED USING FORGED MAPPING.

ON JULY 11TH 2006 THE COURT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“District Judge Fitzgerald has asked me to write to you and acknowledge receipt of the document that you filed on 5th July 2006, i.e. Report of Falsified Land Records and a letter from the Information Commission dated 25th November 2003.”

SHAYNE BROWN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGED MY REPORT ON JULY 12TH 2006 STATING:

“Thank you for your letter regarding the Report of Falsified Records…the Department for Communities and Local Government has considered your letter but unfortunately it does not have responsibility for the issue raised. However, we have forwarded your letter today to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.”

I FILED THIS LETTER AT COURT

ON JULY 17TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED ON MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION AND SEFTON COUNCIL A “CRIME REPORT” TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED TO REGISTER THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET SEAFORTH, AND COPIED IT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, MR PRESCOTT FOR FORWARDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL AFFAIRS.

ON JULY 24TH 2006, MS FOX, THE LAND REGISTRIES ASSISTANT TO LAWYERS FROM LONDON, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Your complaint has been forwarded to the Land Registry by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the matter falls within its remit.”

ON JULY 27TH I WROTE TO SHAYNE BROWN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENDING HIM MORE EVIDENCE.

ON AUGUST 4TH 2006, MRS WEAVER FROM THE LAND REGISTRIES COVENTRY OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY “LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER” STATING:

“My understanding from your letter…is that there has been some fraudulent alteration of one or more of the title plans and that the Land Registry has conspired to make these alterations…some background…may prove useful. The boundary that you are querying is between your property, number 19, and what was formally number 21 Lime Grove. Number 21 was purchased by The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Crosby on 2 September 1960…the application for registration of the Council was lodged on 10 August 1964…it was included in title LA45086. It was included in that title from that time until it was sold again…to Maritime Housing Association on 24th December 1993. At that time it was removed from title LA45086 and registered under title MS351603.”

THIS STATEMENT NEGATES THE TWO FILED PLANS OF TWO TITLES FILED AS MS351603 THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM TITLES LA45086 AND LA45343 IN MARCH AND APRIL 1977.

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006 I FILED AT COURT THE FORGED MAPPING OF THE LAND SOLD AT KEPLER STREET AND COPIED TO:

SEFTON MBC

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

WILLIAM ELSBY, SOLICITOR FOR FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION

AND ASKED JUDGE FITZGERALD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

“The party boundary structure ‘the nib wall’ was, was according to you demolished between March and September 1994, from the above, how do you determine this.”

ON AUGUST 16TH 2006, MR WILLIAMS, SEFTON COUNCILS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I can confirm that the Council will not have provided any information which contributed to the production of the Ordnance Survey plan referred to, nor any other Ordnance Survey plan.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 21 July with enclosures copied to this Department about structural defects regarding your property. I am sorry to read about the problems you are currently experiencing and appreciate this must be a difficult situation for you. Unfortunately, this Department cannot get involved in individual cases or questions of possible court decisions. I would suggest that you continue to seek legal advice.”

ON AUGUST 17TH 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Council is unable to confirm any detail in relation to the party boundary structure “the nib” as requested…Mr George Barr, the property manager referred to in Maritime Housing Association Limited’s letter of March 4th 1999, is now deceased and therefore I am unable to take this matter any further.”

ON AUGUST 21st 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter, received on 15 August, about difficulties encountered with the boundary wall of your property. This has been passed to this Department because of our responsibility for housing…this Department has no power to intervene in private property disputes of this nature…planning functions, such as formulating development plan policies, determining planning applications and enforcing planning control are best carried out by the democratically elected district and, in certain cases, county councils…if you are unhappy with the conduct of the local authority, you may wish to complain via their own complaints procedure. If you are not satisfied…you might wish to take your case to the Local government Ombudsman can investigate whether there has been maladministration.”

ON AUGUST 21ST 2006. MR IAN FLOWERS OF THE LAND REGISTRIES LONDON OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has referred your copy letter of 17 July to this office. However, I regret that the issues you have raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Registry. I will send a copy of this letter to the DCA for their reference.”

ON AUGUST 30th 2006, MR JOHN POWELL, FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENET WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your further letter of 25 August with enclosures about maps affecting your property…this Department cannot get involved with private property disputes. I would suggest that you seek legal advice in order to resolve this matter.”

ON AUGUST 31ST 2006, MS ELWOOD, SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, SENT ME A TERRIER MAP, REFERENCE LA076317 2005, PREPARED BY THE COUNCILS ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING LAND, DONATED TO ME IN APRIL 1994 BY MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION, (BUT SUBSEQUENTLY FENCED OFF ALONG MY GABLE WALL AFTER THE PLANNING APPLICATION STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT – ON THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION OF THE COUNCIL) WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THE TERRIER MAP:

“I thank you for your letter 31st August 2006 in which you sought information regarding a 1 metre strip of land. I am enclosing a plan from which you can clearly be seen the area in which you are interested.”

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2006 MR WILLIAMS, SEFTONS TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“I refer to your letter of 21st August 2006 and would advise that I will not enter into any further correspondence in the matters raised in this letter.”

ON SEPTEMBER 8TH 2006 I WROTE, AND FILED AND SERVED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO MS ELWOOD FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE COUNCIL’S POWERS TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF MARITIMES LAND IN 1994, AND COPIED IT TO:

FAWLEY CONSTRUCTION
MARITIME HOIUSING ASSOCIATION
THE LAND REGISTRY BIRKENHEAD

ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN A FOURTEEN PAGE VERY DETAILED LETTER TO MR POWEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMNET STATING, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING FACT REGARDING THE TITLES OF THE LAND:

False Land Records

“With regard to your letter dated September 12th 2006 and the transcripts of telephone conversations with The Land Registry in Birkenhead (The Registry) which I presume you have received by recorded delivery.

As of today I do not know who owned the land registered at Kepler Street and Maple Grove Seaforth (the land MS351603) between December 24th 1993 and August 31st 1994, nor evidently do Sefton MBC (Sefton) or Maritime Housing Association (Maritime). I present the following conflicting fact which I have been given and compare them with the actual facts of the matter. I give letter references in square brackets, and where appropriate print in bold what I consider to be pertinent points. While the purpose of this letter is to highlight the matter of land ownership, it cannot be done without reference to the demolition of the party boundary structure or the supposed insurance claims made by myself. I will keep these to a minimum. What follows is only a small percentage of the events begun in 1977 or earlier.

The Information

Maritime are averred to have become the "owners" of 'the land MS351603' on December 24th 1994 by Maritime, Sefton and The Registry, Fawley Construction. On October 19th 2005 District Judge Bellamy made the following statement regarding the 'land MS352603'.

"On 6th September 2000 Mr Robinson, by virtue of a Land Registry search ascertained the Maritime Housing Association were the registered proprietors of the above land from January 1994."

The ownership by Maritime is stated by The Registry to have been triggered by the transfer document dated December 24th 1994 but, the title number MS351603 is not recorded on that document, instead, a title number is said to be awaiting designation. The title numbers of LA45343 and LA45086 are used to identify 'the land' that is sold to Maritime by Sefton…

The Titles

Title LA45086 was filed in March 1977 using OS SJ3396 dated 1969.

Title LA45343 was filed in April 1977 using section B of OS SJ3396 dated 1966. Section A of this map would show the land as it was prior to the demolition of the area of land comprising; Peach Grove, Birch Street, Alder Street, Vine Grove, Vine Street, Plum Street, Date Street and Kepler Street circa 1966.

On January 21st 1994, by virtue of the transfer documents The Registry aver that Maritime, the owners of the land from December 24th 1993, became the "registered proprietors" of the land 'greened out', i.e. outlined in green and, stated by The Registry to have been carried out on January 21st 1994 from the filed title plans of titles LA45343 and LA45086.

Title LA45086

On February 3 2006 I obtained the Property Register from The Registry. At 1 of this document it is recorded that 'the land' inter alia is:

"The freehold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above title...being...Lime Grove 1 to 27 (odd numbers) "

Numbers 1 to 27 Lime Grove are shown on OS SJ3396 dated 1966 and comprise of the terrace 1 to 19 Lime Grove, a large detached house numbered 21 Lime Grove and a further three house terrace numbered 23 to 27 Lime Grove.

The proprietary register records that on September 9th 1992.

"The land edged in green on the filed plan has been removed from this title and registered under the title number or numbers shown in green on the said plan."

This 'greening out by The Registry is recorded on Section B of OS SJ3396 dated March 1975 and the new title number is recorded as MS351603 [edged in red on the title plan] which pre dates the filed plan of March 1977 and clearly uses a different version of OS SJ3396 than the 1966 version. The registered proprietors are recorded as Sefton MBC at The Town Hall, Orial Road Bootle on May 12th 1976.

Fact

By September 25th 1992 two separate parcels of land were registered as owned by Sefton under the same 'unique' title number MS351603 - from different versions of OS SJ3396 - at two separate Council locations. These being those 'greened out' of OS SJ3396 dated 1966, and OS SJ3396 dated 1967, and both filed and recorded under the same title number on May 12th 1976.

Registration of MS351603

On February 4th 2003, The Registry sent me a filed plan of MS351603 dated August 31st 1994. This plan comprises of; the amalgamated title plans of LA45343 dated May 12 1976 and; the amalgamated title plans of LA45086 dated May 12 1976 as recorded above.

It appears that Maritime may not have filed the August 31st 1994 registration - another fact withheld from me by The Registry - and did in fact have the completed site registered to them in 'mid 1995'. The Registry refuse to disclose any detail about this registration.

I look forward to a constructive response from you, or better, someone with more authority, i.e. The Deputy Prime Minister.

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2006 THE ASSISTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ROSEMARY AGNEW WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/07976/RA/DH:

“The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your complaint against Sefton Council and write to you…after checking with the Council it appears that your complaint has not yet been dealt with through the Council’s complaint procedure. So: I will send a copy of your complaint to the Council and ask the Chief Executive to put it through the Council’s own complaint procedure, to keep you informed of the progress, and to let you know the outcome.”

ON OCTOBER 3RD 2006, LYNN ROWLAND FROM THE REGISTRY IN BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE, SEAFORTH:

“In order for us to deal with your query, could you please provide us with the reference on the letter sent to you by the Coventry Land Registry. This will enable us to call up any previous correspondence.”

ON OCTOBER 12TH 2006 MR GIBSON, SEFTON’S PRINCIPLE LEGAL ASSISTANT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “REFUSAL NOTICE (VEXATIOUS REPEATED REQUESTS).”: [CAPITALISATION ADDED)

“Further to your numerous letters regarding YOUR NIB WALL and the title to your property AND ADJOINING PROPERTY. I write to inform you that your request for information will not be processed. I have decided that your request is vexatious and repeated requests have been responded to over the years…the reason I have concluded your request is vexatious and that repeated requests have been received and responded to is that the council has spent hundreds of man hours dealing with your requests REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY 17 LIME GROVE, and the INSURANCE CLAIM WHICH YOU ALLEGE WAS NOT MADE.”

ON OCTOBER 17TH 2006, SALLY WALKER, PERSONAL ASSISTANT, FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE O6/100048/SPC/sw:

“Please note you complaint has been allocated the above new reference number…we have at the moment more complaints than we can give our investigators but will allocate your complaint as soon as we can…we will contact you again when your complaint has been allocated…please note we may copy to the council any papers you have sent us about your complaint. This is to inform the Council that your complaint has been brought to our attention

ON OCTOBER 18TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS, CASEWORKER AND ADVICE OFFICER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLOWING TO ME, REGARDING MY LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL DATED JULY 5TH 2006, USING THE RFERENCE END0124895 STATING: (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“Your letter refers to a request for assessment (REFERENCE: 03-36599/06/AD) THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WHICH FOCUSED ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA BY SEFTON MBC. WE WERE UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION IN RESPECT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT AS WE CONCLUDED THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION DID NOT FALL UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. WE REACHED THIS DECISION BECAUSE WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE TO YOU DID NOT FORM PART OF A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO PROVIDED FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT HELD UNDER A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM. I can only repeat the Information that MR DAMMS, the caseworker who completed the assessment, provided to you. During the course of our investigations, SEFTON MBC CONFIRMED THAT THE ‘MISSING DOCUMENTATION (THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCCESS REQUEST) WAS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM…we can only confirm that it is OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ‘MISSING’ DOCUMENTS WERE NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM.”

ON OCTOBER 23RD 2006 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME HEADED “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE.:

“It is my role on behalf of the Chief Superintendent…to conduct investigations into such matters…I would be grateful if you would contact me…in order to arrange a suitable appointment to discuss the matter in detail,”

ON OCTOBER 24TH 2006 I FILED AND SERVED A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO MERSEYSIDE POLICE ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHICH “COMPLAINT AGAINST THE POLICE” THEY REFERRED TO.

ON OCTOBER 25TH 2006, PATRICK BROUGH, THE LAND REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “21 LIME GROVE.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“We have on file a full copy of the comprehensive letter written to you on 4 August by Mrs D M Weaver, the Land Registry at our Coventry office. As Mrs Weaver made clear in the final paragraph of that letter, it contained Land Registries definitive response on the issues you had raised in respect of titles LA45086, LA45343 and MS351603. I do not therefore propose to enter into any further correspondence regarding the matter. It would NOT in any event be appropriate for the Land Registry to comment on QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ASKED IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH SEFTON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND WHICH, THEY HAVE, FOR REASONS STATED IN THEIR RECENT LETTER TO YOU, REFUSED TO ANSWER.”

ON NOVEMBER 2ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“I refer to your letter of 30 October…the Information Commission’s Office conducted an assessment in respect of Sefton Council following a complaint that you submitted to us in 2003. However, in the course of our investigations we were not supplied with any of your personal data. We based our of our assessment on the correspondence that both you and Sefton provided to us in the course of our investigation. However, Sefton Council never provided us with any of the documents that you had requested from them…you have enclosed a print out of your council tax account with your letter. You have asked us to confirm whether this document will not be personal data…because it is not part of a relevant filing system…it appears that the council holds your council tax records on computer. For the purpose of the DPA this information is likely to be your personal data and as such you have a right of access to this data…if the Council held a paper copy of this information at the time of your request, and this document was not held in a relevant filing system, you would not have been entitled to a copy of this information under the DPA.”

ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM MERSEYSIDE POLICE under the reference TK/ih/6VDDW ACKNOWLEDGEING MY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 9TH 2006:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent XXXX, Area Commander for Sefton…Constable xxxx will reply to you directly.”

ON NOVEMBER 9TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.” IN ANSWER TO MY LETTTER OF NOVEMBER 6TH 2006 COPIED TO (CAPITALIATION ADDED):

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

“ The advice that we provided to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council following the assessment we conducted IN 2004 regarding the COMPLAINT that you submitted to our office about Sefton Council. The outcome of OUR ASSESSMENT was explained to you when we concluded our investigation…I can confirm that the Freedom of Information Act does not provided an individual with the right to have INACCURATE DATA amended…I can confirm that we have now closed this case and that the large volume of correspondence that you have enclosed with your last letter will be HELD ON FILE for information only…we will be in touch with you shortly regarding the subject access request that you made to this office on 21 October 2006.”

ON NOVEMBER 16th 2006, FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASEWORK AND ADVICE MANAGER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE FOII/486SAR/310.” (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You first of all asked us for copies of all the correspondence and, if any, faxes emails and telephone conversations regarding [your] REQUESTS to the Commission…given that your letter of 21 October 2006 was only concerned with…case reference 03/36599/06…we have supplied you with the communications WE EXCHANGED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL in relation to 03/36599/06.”

03/36599/06 WAS A “REQUEST” REGARDING THE INFORMATION WITHHELD BY SEFTON COUNCIL DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND DECEMBER 31ST 1994 WHICH, HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER DATA OF FORGED MAPPING.

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I RECEIVED TWO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN DATED NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, THE FIRST REFERENCED 06/C/10048.SPC3: THE SECOND REFERENCED 06/C/10048/RA.

ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you are in dispute with the council over whether you owe, or have ever owed, council tax payments…it is not the role of the Information Commissioners Office to assess whether or not an individual is liable for council tax payments and we have neither the resources or expertise to do so…the amount of money that you owe in council taxes has been considered by the Magistrates Court and you have been issued with two liability orders. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be unable to overturn a decision that has been made by the courts…you have indicated that you have made a subject access request to access your computer records, but that you have ‘been unable to obtain them’…you could consider a complaint if you felt the council had not responded to your request in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. However, you would need to provide us with a copy of your request letter …and any other correspondence from the council relating to your request…it would appear that the Local Government Ombudsman is better placed to consider your complaint about whether the council has correctly assessed your council tax liability.”

ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2006 I SENT MS HOWKINS THE INFORMATION SHE HAD REQUESTED AND COPIED IT TO:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FOA JUDGE FITZGERALD AND HH JUDGE STEWART

BOOTLE MAGISTRATES COURT

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

MR SPARROW AS THE ipcc

MS SEEKS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

ON NOVEMBER 29TH 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“It would appear that you have pursued the matter through the courts…before we can take any action in respect of your complaint to this office we need you to provide us with details of the courts response to your claim against the council…we would be grateful if you could provide details of the outcome of your court case, including copies of any correspondence that you have received from the court in respect of this matter. Once we have received this additional information from you we will consider how best to progress your complaint.”

ON DECEMBER 4TH 2006 I WROTE AGAIN TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ENCLOSING 22 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FALSE LAND RECORDS AND FORGED MAPPING AND COPIER TO:

LORD FALCONER

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

And with part of the evidence to:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT FAO HIS HONOUR JUDGE MACKAY

CHIEF CONSTABLE MERSEYSIDE POLICE

ipcc

THE LAW SOCIETY

LEGAL DIRECTOR SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

CEO HALIFAX BUILDING SOCIETY

THE HOUSING CORPORATION

ON DECEMBER 5TH 2006, TED POWELL, RESEARCH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter to John Prescott MP to which I am replying on his behalf…the matters you have raised are the responsibility of the Department of Communities and Local Government. I have therefore passed your correspondence to that Department so that your concerns may be addressed in more detail.”

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2006 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN ACKNOWLEDGED MY CORRESPONCE UNDER 06/C/10048/SPC3.

ON DECEMBER 14TH 2006 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO LORD FALCONER, ENCLOSING SEVENTY FOUR PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND COPIED TO:

THE LAW SOCIETY

SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

“The court and the Government appear not to be able to deal with the deceit which over the years have escalated to the present state, absorbing tens of thousands of pounds of public money, and occurred seemingly centered on the unlawful sale of land by Sefton Council to Maritime housing Association in 1993/4. It is quite clear that some parties in this matter should be sent to prison rather than the threat of prison, loss of my home and massive unfounded costs and fallacious liability orders for Council Tax, obtained by perjury, being used against myself in full view of the authorities…the matter now needs to go to the Court of Human Rights as a matter of great urgency and not be passed around like a bad smell. Please note it is the duty of senior members of the Government to keep the courts independent and not let them become subverted from within, or from without.”

ON 13TH DECEMBER MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REFERENCED Misc AND HEADED “COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE”:

“I refer to the above matter in relation to your on-going issues and various correspondences…I have reviewed the matter once again and would refer you to the letter sent to you by D/I xxxv.”

THE ENCLOSED LETTER DATED DECEMBER 1ST 2005 HEADED “LETTERS OF COMPLAINT” STATED:

“I have indicated on several occasions there are no criminal offences committed by any party against you or your property in relation to your claim for damages. This is a civil matter between yourself and other parties. The allegation of perjury against members of staff of Sefton Council was investigated and there were no offences committed. As indicated by Superintendent xxxx in his letter to you we are not prepared to communicate with you any further. You should refer all of your future correspondence to those parties you hold responsible for damage.”

ON DECEMBER 19TH 2006, NATALIE JADE HOLE, CUSTOMER LIASON UNIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Thank you for your letter of 7 December addressed to the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP regarding false land records. The Department of Local Government does not have responsibility for the issue you have raised. Your letter has therefore been sent to the Department for Constitutional affairs.”

ON December 21st 2006, CATHY HOWKINS FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER EFERENCE ENO124895.”:

“Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2006 in response to my request of 29 November 2006…you are seeking access to your council tax records …we will only consider whether or not the council responded to your subject access request of 15 November 2005 in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998…I have therefore written to the council to ask it to confirm whether it has provided you with the information that you requested. If the council has not provided you with this data, I have asked it to confirm whether it will now do so, if the council does not intend to provide you with the information that you have requested, I have asked it to clarify the exemption within the Act upon which it is relying to withhold this data.”

ON JANUARY 10TH 2007, MR DANNY O’ SULLIVAN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

“Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2006 addressed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We will send you a reply by 30 January 2007…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007 I WROTE TO THE HOME SECRETARY, JOHN REID REGARDING THE REFUSAL OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF FORGED TITLE MAPS BY THE LAND REGISTRY.

ON JANUARY 11TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 IN RESPONSE TO “COPY LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS” SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY:

“An inspection of our system indicates that 19 Lime Grove is not registered therefore we would not have any documents relating to the property on our files.”

ME ON JANUARY 15TH 2007 WITH REGARD TO FURTHER COPY CORRESPONDENCE AND A ‘FEEDBACK FORM’ MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO UNDER REFERENCE YV000098:

“Your letter will be forwarded to the Area Commander at Sefton for his attention. You should receive a response within 21 days.”

ON JANUARY 17TH 2007, JEREMY DONALDSON, HEAD OF THE LAND REGISTRY AGENCY CASE REVIEW TEAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, CHIEF REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JANUARY 12TH TO MS DOWKIN IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER MS361603 LAND AT KEPLER STREET AND MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH” UNDER REFERENCE ACRT/700/06/118/JRD”

“I refer you to the letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mrs Weaver…I have nothing to add to what Mrs Weaver said.”

ON JANUARY 26TH 2007 KERRRY LOCK, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME ON BEHALF OF JOHN REID UNDER REFERENCE T1944/7:

“Thank you for your letter…regarding your wish to formally report a crime to the police…the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Secretary…Ministers do not have the authority to intervene in operational matters. If you wish to make a complaint…contact their Professional Standards department…alternatively you can make your complaint through the Merseyside Police Authority…or the …ipcc.”

ON JANUARY 29TH 2007, DINESH BHATT,FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED CSU/20492:

“We are the third tier in Her Majesty’s Court Service…we investigate complaints concerning the administration of HMCS. We cannot investigate complaints concerning judicial fraud…I note that you have already reported the matter of fraud to Merseyside Police.”

ON FEBRUARY 1ST 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 83360:

“The issue raised is outside of the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the HM Land Registry, so that they can consider its contents.”

ON FEBRUARY1ST 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.:

“We have now received a response from the council’s Data Protection Officer. He states that the Revenue Manager has indicated that your request was answered at the time…the Revenue Manager has also stated that the council hold hard copies of the documents if required and, in view of this…I shall ask for them to be copied to you again.”

ON FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 I WROTE TO THE CHIEF CONSABLE OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AT KEPLER STREET / MAPLE CLOSE, SEAFORTH AND COPIED TO:

JOHN REID, HOME SECRETARY

LORD FALCONER

MERSEYSIDE POLICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ipcc

LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEFTON COUNCIL

MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON FEBRUARY 6TH 2007 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED SI/lh6VDDW THANKING ME FOR MY “COMPLAINT” OF FEBRUARY 2ND 2007 AND STATING:

“I have forwarded your letter to Chief Superintendent xxxx, Area Commander for the Sefton area, as he is the officer who has been dealing with your investigation.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2006, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is no evidence that the Council have concealed records.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MRS S HACKNEY, SECRETARY, WROTE TO ME FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS OFFICE UNDER THE REFERENCE 006/C/10048/CSO/SH STATING:

“Your complaint has now been allocated to Mr Oxley.”

ON FEBRUARY 16TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I RECALL that you submitted a complaint about the issue of YOUR NIB WALL to the Ombudsman IN 1995…I have considered what you have submitted with your current complaint and it is my view that this concerns basically THE SAME ISSUE…I understand that the Police…are no longer prepared to communicate further with you on this matter…I can see no benefit in investigating your complaint [because] this is a PRIVATE MATTER and not one of public administration.”

ON FEBRUARY 27TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER REFERENCE 0375/02/07 REGARDING A LETTER I HAD WRITTEN TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

“The contents of your letter concerning Maritime Housing Association have been noted…if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON FEBRUARY 28TH 2007, ANGELA ELLISON FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME in answer to a letter to her dated February 28th 2007 UNDER REFERENCE ENDO124895.”:

“There is nothing further that I can add to my previous comments.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MR OXLEY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS INVESTIGATOR WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING MY ALLEGED COMPLAINT DATED 1995, AND THE LIABILITY ORDERS OBTAINED BY SEFTON FOR NONE EXISTENT COUNCIL TAX LIABILITIES, STATING. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“You have asked in your latest letter for RECORD OF YOUR COMPLAINT which you say was not made at that time because the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall was not at that time established…there are NO RECORDS of the decision on your compliant…are RECORDS of the complaint numbers your complaints…these are 95/C/04896…I DO RECALL the complaint about the OWNERSHIP of the nib wall…I informed you that YOU had made complaint on this subject AT THAT TIME…writing to you. There was no decision on the OWNERSHIP of THE WALL as that was NOT RELEVANT, what WAS relevant was that this was A PRIVATE MATTER between you and the Council OR the housing association…I note that you complained that the council officers COMMITTED PERJURY…and that you complained about this CRIMINAL OFFENCE to Merseyside Police. You also challenged the competency of the Magistrates Court and APPEALED TO THE CROWN COURT which was unable to help you…I am sending a copy of this letter and the letter of February 19th to the Council’s Chief Executive.”

THERE WAS NO APPEAL TO THE CROWN COURT.

ON MARCH 13TH 2007, BELINDA DAWKINS, OF THE LAND REGISTRIES CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM IN LONDON WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING TITLE MS 351603 UNDER REFERENCE CSG 38 – 07 ON BEHALF OF PETER COLLIS, HEAD REGISTRAR, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER SENT TO THE LAND REGISTRY ON MARCH 8TH 2007. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ON THE FIRST POINT I can confirn that the Land Registry was supplied with the August 1994 version of Ordnance Survey map OS SJ3396NW which CORRESPONDED with title MS351603 – 21 Lime Grove…on the second point…if you want a response…please contact the appropriate land registry office which deals with your area.”

ON MARCH 12TH 2007, MS ANNE SEEEKS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMANS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER THE REFERENCE 06/C/10048/CSO REGARDING A LETTER DATED MARCH 16TH 2007:

“I have asked Mr Corney, an Assistant Ombudsman to review the file on your complaint on my behalf. Mr Corney does not manage Mr Oxley and has not previously been involved with your complaint. He will complete the review and write to you as quickly as possible. His decision will be final.”

ON MARCH 22ND I WROTE A COMPLAINT TO MS SEEKS REGARDING MR OXLEY HEADED “MALICIOUS MIS-STATEMENT – BREACH OF DUTY”, POINTING OUT TO HER THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT BY ME TO THE OMBUDSMAN IN 1995 REFERENCED 95/C/03824.”

ON MARCH 22ND 2007, MR CORNEY, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE 06/C/10048/RJC/jm. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“ I have read the PAPERS and see nothing to suggest that the decision was wrong, the only point I would accept is that complaint 95/c/03824 WAS NOT MADE IN 1995, as it was IN FACT received in this office on 10 January 1996…Mr Oxley is also quite correct…about the LIABILITY ORDER for NONE payment of Council Tax…there is no way in which the Ombudsman can overturn the decision of a Magistrates Court, which has been REINFORCED IN TURN BY THE CROWN COURT. ”

ON MARCH 26TH 2007, LEIGH TAPPIN, OF THE MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TRANSFER LETTER” UNDER REFERENCE 154306:

“Thank you for your letter dated 16/3/07 addressed to Lord Falconer…the issue raised is outside the remit of this department. Consequently, I have forwarded your letter to the DCLG.”

ON MARCH 27TH 2007, MR PATRICK BROUGH THE REGISTRAR AT BIRKENHEAD WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, WITH REGARD TO A LETTER AND DOCUMENTS DATED MARCH 20TH 2007, UNDER THE REFERENCE CL145/03. (CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“I have nothing to add to the COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION which Mrs Weaver gave you except to say…title MS351603 was FIRST registered on 21 January 1994 and not on 25 September as YOU SUGGEST.”

ON MAY 4TH 2007, KELLY TOMLIN, OF HMSC’S CUSTOMER SERVICES UNIT, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE CSU/20492:

““Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2007 addressed to Lord Falconer…if we decide your letter is best answered by another office, we will write and tell you where your letter has been transferred.”

On May 8TH 2007, ANNE SEEKS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME, REGARDING A LETTER DATED APRIL 23RD 2007, UNDER REFERENCE 06/10048/AS/CRB and changing the date for the 1995, 1996 complaint C/04896 to 1999:

“Both Mr Oxley and Mr Corney have explained why your complaint will not be investigated. Their decisions are correct…I have to tell you that the file relating to complaint 99/C/04896 was destroyed some time ago and I cannot therefore comply with your request.”

ON MAY 14TH 2007, SUSAN HOLLERAN FROM THE JUDICIAL OFFICE OF THE ROYAL COURT OF JUSTICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING EVIDENCE I HAD SENT TO THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OVER THE “LAST MONTHS” REFERENCED 0160/05/07. CAPITALISATION ADDED):

“The contents of those letters concerning damage to YOUR WALL have been noted……if you wish to take the matter further you may like to consider seeking legal advice. I am afraid that this office nor the Lord Chief Justice is in a position to offer such advice.”

ON MAY 18TH 2007 PAULA MULLIN OF HMCS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED ”CLAIM NUMBERS 5LV53314 & 6L50690 UNDER REFERENCE CSU21318 AND, REGARDING “LETTERS OF 14 APRIL, ADDRESSED TO LORD FALCONER. LORD GOLDSMITH & LORD PHILLIPS WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED TO HMCS BECAUSE:

“This office is responsible for dealing with all correspondence in relation to the administration within the courts in England and Wales.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, KAREN ROUSE, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY LETTER OF MAY 31ST 2007:

“The matters raised in your letter are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Your letter has therefore been transferred to the new Ministry of Justice.”

ON MAY 31ST 2007, SARAH MASTERSON, OF THE HOME OFFICE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE T16299/7 REGARDING “YOUR POLICE COMPLAINT.”:

“I can see from your letter that you have raised a complaint with the Chief Constable and the…IPCC and are not satisfied with the response you have received…the IPCC is an independent body and therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you will need to seek independent legal advice.”

ON JUNE 12TH 2007 I WROTE A ‘ROUND ROBIN’ LETTER REGARDING THE FALLACIOIUS INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732 AKA RR98XN AKA AT01939, TO:

LORD FALCONER

LORD PHILLIPS

THE HOME SECRETARY

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

THE INFORMATION COMMISSION

THE LAW SOCIETY

ON JUNE 26TH 2007, HIESH DARJEE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER REFERENCED 070626/J24 – 54/018673/07”

“Thank you for your letter concerning council tax. As the issues you have raised is the responsibility of this Department…I have been asked to reply…I am afraid that the administration and collection of council tax is the responsibility of the local authority and it would not be appropriate for ministers or officials from this Department to intervene in individual cases between a local authority and its taxpayers.”

On June 27th 2007, BERNARD McNALLY FROM THE CUSTOMER SERVICES TEAM OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166270:

“Thank you for your “round robin letter” regarding Sefton Borough council. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”

ON JUNE 28TH 2007, H JARMAN FROM THE CASE RECEPTION UNIT OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSION WROTE THE FOLLLOWING TO ME UNDER REFERENCE INFO166461:

“Thank you for your correspondence received at this office on 14th June 2007 regarding your information request to Sefton MBC. The information you have provided will be kept on our files for information only.”

ON JULY 9TH 2009 LANDSEARCH LIMITED EMAILED ME CONFIRMING THEIR CONTRACT WITH ME TO SUPPLY ME WITH TITLES LA 45086, LA 45343 AND TITLE MS351603.

JUST OVER A YEAR SINCE MY LETTER TO JOHN PRESCOTT REGARDING THE FORGED MAPPING, MARY ROSE MULLINER,LAWYER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY, TELFORD, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN A LETTER HEADED “TITLE NUMBER LA45086.”:

“The point made by you in your letter of 13 June 2007 as to the erasure of the Crown copyright date. The 1977 title plan for LA43086 is based on more than one edition of the Ordnance Survey. The first sheet within which former LA45086 is to be found, is based on a 1966 edition, and the second and third sheets, within which second sheet your property is found, is based on a 1970 edition. Where more than one edition is being used it would be inappropriate to refer a crown copyright date.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Bob Stanley,

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