Dear Sir or Madam,

Can a public authority say a request that has been repeatedly made to it and never answered, say that request is vexatious under the Act.

Yours faithfully,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I do not see how as I am not making a complain but seeking information under the FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your answer does not seem to accord with my question, or the spirit or letter of the Act, regarding a none specified 'first time' request for information under the FOIA to an unspecified authority who has never been asked to, or answered the request previously, therefore, the allegation of vexation, can have no basis in fact or the legislation and therefore, it appears illogical and irrational for the authority to say the request is vexatious under the Act and refuse to answer the request as the authority has not been 'vexed' by the request previously and has never provided an answer to the request previously because it has never had the request put to it and, therefore cannot rely on the Act to allege vexation as a response to the request because the request cannot be said to cause any of the specified reasons given by the Act for the allegation of vexation from a first time request without, under a specified section of the Act, some form of confirmation to support the contention of vexation being given and, which can be challenged under the Act, i.e, cost, disruption, disproportionate effort etc.

In simple terms, its as if a person has rung a speaking clock for the time and received the answer 'buy a watch' the request for the time has clearly not been answered as the person has not been given what he requested: i,e. the time.

Just as clearly: by the time the person buys a watch, he may have missed a train he was going to catch, which triggered his need for the current time but, not the ability to discover the time at a later date by the purchase of a watch.

A complaint based on that fact may then be made to the authority who controls the speaking clock but, until the failure of the speaking clock to give the time has been investigated and confirmed or denied as a legitimate answer to the request for the time, neither the authority or the person can take the matter further.

With regard to all of the above:

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.

I ask that this point be confirmed in plain English by a simple yes or no type statement stating that such a request can, or cannot be alleged to be vexatious and not by a download.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

How do you, without knowing the identity of "an authority" conclude, that when "an authority" which, may have all the recorded information required to answer a FOI request and does not need to 'generate' any further information to answer the request, can deem a request vexatious under the Act without explanation, and

how, in those circumstances, can s.14 or any other section of the Act apply as, clearly this would thwart the intention of the Act and give "an authority" the unfair advantage of not answering either the FOI request, or complying with the Act by simply saying it had to 'generate' information to do so without ever needing to disclose the basis of that contention to anyone.

Nor do I see how the Commission can answer for "an unidentified authority" or, adduce the circumstances that may pertain and lead to "an unidentified authority" refusing to answer anyones FOI request they choose to on the basis that they have to 'generate information to do so.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

How do you, without knowing the identity of "an authority" conclude, that when "an authority" which, may have all the recorded information required to answer a FOI request and does not need to 'generate' any further information to answer the request, can deem a request vexatious under the Act without explanation, and

how, in those circumstances, can s.14 or any other section of the Act apply as, clearly this would thwart the intention of the Act and give "an authority" the unfair advantage of not answering either the FOI request, or complying with the Act by simply saying it had to 'generate' information to do so without ever needing to disclose the basis of that contention to anyone.

Nor do I see how the Commission can answer for "an unidentified authority" or, adduce the circumstances that may pertain and lead to "an unidentified authority" refusing to answer anyones FOI request they choose to on the basis that they have to 'generate information to do so.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear SIR OR MADAM

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: MY FOI REQUEST:

I FIRST REFER YOU TO THE LETTER BELOW I WROTE TO MRS THOMAS, THE
LGO ON JULY 9TH 2001

YOUR REF: 00/c/17558/pat 3/am

I refer you to a letter from Mr Oxley to myself dated 23/2/01 in
which he summarised my complaint against SMBC as

"that the Council issued a claim to its insurers without your
knowledge or permission"

I refer you to my reply dated 27/3/01 which corrects this
summarisation and states the complaint to be that the Council
issued a claim to their insurers based on information they knew to
be false.

The information that I had issued a complaint to the Council as
summarised by Mr Oxley on 23/2/01 was forwarded to the Council. The
Council responded to that complaint , not my actual complaint.

It appears that the complaint I am really pursuing has not been
addressed despite the many references to it in the correspondence
to your office reproduced below.

10/11/00 + 18/12/00 There is now another issue that I wish to make
a complaint about, this is that the Council have issued a 'claim'
or 'potential claim' to their insurers in regard to my property,
based on information known by then to be false.

28/12/00 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th
December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond to my
further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---Will you please inform
me if you are treating my complaint to you that Sefton MBC have
acted incorrectly by issuing an improper insurance claim, allegedly
from me, based on information they know to be untrue.

6/2/01 Thank you for your acknowledgement of my letter of 18th and
28th December 2000, you do not make it clear if you will respond to
my further complaint against Sefton MBC in regard to the improper
insurance claim they allege I have made.---

Will you please inform me if you are treating my complaint to you
that Sefton MBC have acted incorrectly by issuing an improper
insurance claim, allegedly from me, based on information they know
to be untrue, as a matter of maladministration.---

My letter to you of 24th January 2001 you required more than an
acknowledgement, in it I asked it you were accepting that Sefton
MBC had committed an act of maladministration by issuing an
insurance claim to their insurers based on information they knew to
be incorrect. As requested on 24th January 2001, will you answer
the question of whether you are accepting the complaint of
maladministration in regard to the insurance claim based on false
information submitted by SMBC to their insurers

Over the past months I have provided you time and again with the
evidence and references that confirms the above. The overwhelming
evidence is that SMBC have without a doubt acted in a manner
calculated to pervert the facts and conceal their misdeeds at my
expense. This has been done by the calculated use of
misinformation, lies and failure to provide answers to my
legitimate and justifiable questions.

23/2/01 The Council as far as I can establish have no liability in
regard to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If
this is the case it follows that they have issued false information
to myself and their insurers.

1/3/01 The Council as far as I can establish, based on ownership
and possession by others, have no liability or indemnity in regard
to any damage to my property at any time after 14/3/94. If this is
the case it follows that they have issued false information to
myself and their insurers the purpose of which appears to
constitute maladministration and an attempt to cover up wrongdoing.
It also means that indemnity would not be provided to me (if
claimed) by their insurers.

Will you please keep me informed of what the Councils response to
my complaint is and give me the opportunity to check their response
with evidence I possess?

28/3/01 I do feel there are things in SMBC's letter to you that are
incorrect and require clarification but they may become academic if
the period of SMBC's legal liability and indemnity does not extend
beyond 14/3/94 when the developer who was also the site owner, took
possession. My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their
insurers about damage to my property which contained information
known to SMBC, at the time they issued these claims, to be untrue
and that they did this with the knowledge that they had no legal
liability to do so on either one or both of the occasions they did
so.

Clearly my complaint that the Council issued a claim based on
information known to them to be false at the time they issued the
claim has not been addressed. Do you intend to do so ?

I also refer you to Mr Oxleys statement in his letter to me dated
11/4/01 that "It is also a matter for the insurers to decide
whether any time limitation applies to your claim".

This statement is factually and legally incorrect on the basis that
the claim referred to was issued on the false information that it
was for damage caused to my property for which the Council had no
liability for and was allegedly linked to a previously false claim
for unspecified damage to my property.

You are of course aware that status barring is statute law and as
such cannot be affected by an insurance company, this is in fact
confirmed by the insurers themselves.

The fact that the Council assert they had no involvement with the
site concerned after 1/4/94 means that the alleged claim made by
myself for damage occurring after 21/4/94 was a false claim.

The assertion that ownership of the land was stated by the Council
to be unknown to the Council on 30th June 2000 is unlikely, the
ensuing claim by the Council to their insurers could not have been
made if the ownership on the land was not theirs as liability goes
with the ownership of the land. As you and the Council know.

It appears that the claim was issued either with the knowledge that
the land was not owned by the Council or that the claim was made
without the ownership of the land being established or that the
Council did in fact own the land.

The matter of ownership of the land, with regard to compensation,
was first raised on 31st May 2000 by the surveyor who conducted a
survey at my property on 19th May 2000. The Council then wrote to
me on 30th June 2000 to assert the ownership of the land was not
known to them. The Council had at that time, had a month to
ascertain the ownership of the land and yet had not done so,
implying they did not know that the land had been owned by Maritime
Housing since 21st January 1994. The knowledge of ownership would
have also made a claim to their insurers impossible as liability
goes with ownership.

On 3rd October 2000 I wrote to the Land Registry requesting details
of ownership of the land concerned. On 6th October 2001 I received
the information that since 21st January 1994 the land had been in
the ownership of Maritime Housing.

The tactic employed by the Council is to ignore facts and
information supplied by myself, this tactic, it appears, is being
employed by your office as there seems to be no credibility given
to my complaint that the Council have and still are lying to me.
Nor is the fact that you clearly avoid revealing that the Council
have not provided the information that they were not liable or
insured for any damage to my property occurring after 14th March
1994 which is proven to be the period when damage occurred. To do
this you are ignoring the law, which I assert is irrational.

The Council asserted that I was told to write my letter of
complaint to them to re-open an insurance claim and this would
suspend time limitation. If this were true time limitation would
have been suspended. After consultation with the insurance section
of the Council Mr Williams stated that time limitation would be
decided by the insurers. The insurers state time limitation is a
matter for the courts. Is it credible that Mr Oxley and yourself do
not know about time limitation ? With respect, I think not.

I refute the assertion that the letter I wrote to the Council
on18th April 2000 was a claim, it was written as a complaint as the
result of being told by Mr Williams it would stop lime limitation.

I ask you to respond to all the above facts and explain why you
have not taken them into consideration before rejecting my
complaint.

THEN:

In March 2003 I obtained my personal data from Sefton Council which
revealed to me the basis of the fraudulent "Insurance Claim" I had
supposedly made against the Council in 1993 referenced W215732 and
its alleged "reopening of claim RR98XN dated April 18th 2000 which,
has been the subject of Sefton Council's letter to the Ombudsman on
March 15th 2001, Clearly the situation had changed and I wanted the
Ombudsmans decision reversed. I had enlisted my MP's help in this
matter and he had contacted the Ombudsman on my behalf:

ON JUNE 24TH 2003, MRS BELLWOOD OF YOUR OFFICE WROTE TO ME
REGARDING A "FURTHER COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL"...and stating ...WE NEED INFORMATION TO HELP US ACHIEVE
THIS."

I NOW REFER YOU TO A FURTHER LETTERS TO MR BARHAM AT YOUR OFFICE
REGARDING THE OMBUDSMANS DECISION ABOUT SEFTON COUNCIL'S "INSURANCE
CLAIMS":

Letter to Mr Barham dated June 26th 2003:

Your Ref:03/C/04380/PIB

Probably in 1993 or 1994 Sefton MBC (SMBC) invented a claim against
themselves and credited it to myself. This claim was referenced
W215732.

In October 1999 I became aware of this claim when Maritime Housing
Association told me that SMBC had informed them that I had made
this claim in 1993. This claim was declared by SMBC to have been
for damage to my gable wall. When I challenged this assertion SMBC
refuted it by declaring that it was legitimate information supplied
to Maritime under a contractual agreement and that it had been
supplied to them in "good faith."

On obtaining my data via the IC in March this year I discovered
that this claim is declared to be for damage to my property -
especially the gable wall - caused by the demolition of 21 Lime
Grove which SMBC declare was adjoined to my property at the time it
was demolished in the 1960's.

As you see from the OS map I have sent you 21 Lime Grove was a
detached house and never adjoined number 19. My wife and I
purchased 19 Lime Grove in 1972 when 21 Lime Grove had been
demolished and maisonettes built in its place.

I ask that you have claim W215732 investigated and inform me of the
result as a matter of urgency, given the clear evidence that it
could not exist.

Letter to Mr Barham June 26th 2003

I refer to your telephone call on July 7th 2002.

Due to the long standing and serious nature of my compliant I do
not consider it appropriate to discuss it by telephone.

This matter requires that all the parties understand what has been
said to whom and, I must stress to you that part of the problem is
that in the past the lack of written confirmation has allowed this
matter to be manipulated by Sefton Council and others.

I regret this situation has arisen but had the matter been fully
investigated in the past, this would not be the case.

ON JULY 11TH 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST SEFTON...HAS BEEN PASSED TO ME...I HAVE
SEEN A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE OMBUDSMAN TO MR J BENTON MP DATED
29 JANUARY 2002IN WHICH SHE SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN DECIDED NOT TO
INVESTIGATE YOUR COMPLAINT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT HAD
PASSED...AND BECAUSE THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO YOU...AS
FAR AS I CAN SEE, THE ISSUES YOU ARE NOW BRINGING TO THE OMBUDSMANS
ATTENTION APPEARS TO BE TO BE ABOUT THE SAME CONCERNS WHICH THE
OMBUDSMAN CONSIDERED TWO YEARS AGO...YOUR RECENT LETTER DOES NOT
GIVE THE OMBUDSMAN ANY REASON TO BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION INTO A
FURTHER COMPLAINT...I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE SENT MAY
ONLY RECENTLY HAVE COME TO LIGHT BUT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT
THAT YOU COULD HAVE MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE OMBUDSMAN WITHIN THE
NORMAL TWELVE MONTHS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974. NOR
DOES IT ALTER THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
YOU. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THEREFORE THAT THE OMBUDSMAN HAS REASON TO
OPEN A NEW INVESTIGATION.

AND

July12th 2003:

Thank you for your letter dated 11th July 2003.

SMBC declared that by the demolition of an adjoining building in
the 1960's the former party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove
became the gable wall of 19 Lime Grove. This is untrue.

In October 1999 SMBC declared to Maritime Housing Association that
I had made a claim against SMBC with regard to the damage in 1993,
i.e. damage to my gable wall caused primarily by this demolition in
the 1960's. This claim is referenced W215732 and is declared by
SMBC to Maritime to be for "cracking and deterioration to my gable
wall." This is untrue.

With regard to claim W215732, SMBC's insurance brokers wrote to me
on August 19th 2002 and declared that claim W215732 was with regard
to an incident on January 1st 1994. This is untrue.

The misinformation regarding this alleged claim - W215732 - which
was supplied to Maritime by SMBC became the basis of my compliant
to SMBC on November 4th 1999 and to yourselves on January 30th
2000.

Clearly the determination of that complaint by yourselves was based
on deceitful information provided to Maritime and myself by SMBC.
Dated January 1994 - not 1993.

I would also point out to you that as no damage to my property was
caused by claim W215732 dated 1st January 1994, no legal remedy
could have been in existence regarding it.

I request that you copy all the evidence - including that sent
today - I have sent to you since June this year and return the
originals to me.

Enclosed. Maritimes Letter dated October 22nd 1999. Aon's Letter
dated August 19th 2002.

ON JULY 23RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I NOTE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD MADE
AN INSURANCE CLAIM...THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINT I CAN SEE, IS
THAT WHICH THE OMBUDSMAN HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND HAS DECLINED TO
PURSUE FURTHER...I AM SENDING A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OF SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL TO LET HIM KNOW
THE POSITION."

AND

Mr Barham July 24th 2003

Thank you for your letter dated July 23rd 2003.

I wish to point out to you that your assertion that my complaint
has been dealt with and that the means to resolve it was to take
legal action is incorrect.

My complaint has never been dealt with as I had no knowledge of
claim W215732 until March this year.

SMBC clearly state that this claim was made by myself in 1993.

This is prior to any other alleged claim made by myself regarding
damage to my property on 1994.

Claim W215732 is in no way linked to any further claim as it
regarding alleged demolition in the 1960's which is proven could
have not damaged my property in the manner SMBC declare.

There is no legal action I can take regarding claim W215732 for
there is no damage to my property to claim for, nor any reason for
SMBC to deal with it.

My former solicitors confirm this and therefore your assertion that
my current complaint is "whether you had made an insurance claim"
is in error.

The fact is that I did not , nor could have made a claim regarding
W215732 as W215732 is an invention of SMBC which was then reported
to Maritime Housing Association in February 1999.

I enclose Mr Barrs assertion that primary damage was caused to my
property and is clearly false as is his assertion that my property
was formally mid terrace.

To be clear. I wish to make a complaint that this false claim
W215732 has nothing to support it in fact, and its invention is a
deliberate act of maladminisration, which despite my best efforts
was withheld from me for many years in the furtherance of claim
W215732 to my disadvantage.

Enclosed: Letter to MHA from Barr. Dated February 1999 Letter from
SMBC's CEO date May 1st 2002 Letter to SMBC's Legal Department.
Dated 26 November 2002 RSVP"

ON AUGUST 7TH 2003 MR HOBBS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:

"MR BARHAMS LETTER OF 23 JULY GAVE THE REASON WHY THE OMBUDSMANS
DECIDED NOT TO PERUSE YOUR COMPLAINT. I HAVE READ THE PAPERS, AND
SEE NOTHING TO SUGGEST THE DECISION WAS WRONG...THE OMBUDSMAN
REMAINS UNABLE TO HELP YOU AND MR BARHAMS DECISION MUST STAND

On August 7th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed "Our Ref: W215732

Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We would respectfully reiterate that you refer this matter to your
legal advisor."

I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOBBS ON AUGUST 8TH 2003

Thank you for your letter dated August 7th 2003.

I note your position regarding the false claim W215732 and your
evident support of it, will you affirm this is the case.

I regard this as irrational and point out to you that claim W215732
is still being dealt with by SMBC as if it exists, it does not ,
nor ever has.

I request that you return to me all the copies of documents I have
sent to you over the past months and copies of my own letters to
yourselves.

On August 18th 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can merely reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisor."

ON AUGUST 26TH 2003 SEFTON COUNCILS FINANCE DIRECTOR (with
constructive knowledge of my letters to the Ombudsman), WROTE (pp
Ms Swale), THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Further your letter dated 14th August 2003 regarding clarification
of claim W215732. I attach photocopies of the letters from your
solicitors dated 26th January 1995 and 29th November 1995 which
clearly state they are making a claim pon your behalf."

On September 1st 2003 Aon, Sefton's Claims Managers wrote the
following to me in a letter headed Our Ref: W215732:

"Our Client: Sefton Council

Re: Public Liability Claim:

Incident: 01 January 1994,

We can only reiterate that you refer this matter to your legal
advisors as before."

ON AUGUST 21ST 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME IN
A LETTER HEADED, ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEFTON MBC EMPLOYEES:

"THE ABOVE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY A SENIOR DETECTIVE FROM THIS
AREA...AND OUR FORCE SOLICITOR. IT IS AND WILL REMAIN A CIVIL
MATTER. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY MORE CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU IN
RESPECT OF THIS CASE. THE COUNCIL IN THE FORM OF MR WILLIAMS
(TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR) CONFIRMS THAT HE HAS BEEN DEALING
WITH YOUR CASE AND ACCEPTS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FORMAL CLAIM IN
YOUR NAME. I SUGGEST THAT YOU REFER THE MATTER TO A SOLICITOR AND
THE DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE WILL BE KEPT FOR SIX YEARS PENDING ANY
CIVIL ACTION YOU MAY TAKE."

ON SEPTEMBER 2ND 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MR HOPE AT AON:

As you know from 2 unanswered letters to yourselves dated May 19th
and July 12th 2002, (both copied to Merseyside Police as this
letter will be) several senior members of SMBC, have affirmed to me
that claim W215732 is a claim made by my solicitors in relation to
a letter from my solicitors dated January 26th 1995 regarding
damage to my property. The damage my solicitors refer to was that
caused by the demolition of the maisonettes at Kepler Street,
Seaforth, Liverpool between March 14th and April 6th 1994 and
notified by me to SMBC on April 6th 1994. This alleged damage was
acknowledged pp by Mr Barr on April 15th 1994 and is affirmed by
both SMBC and Royal & SunAlliance to be the responsibility of
Fawley.

On February 27th 1996 Ms E Smith Senior Claims Officer SMBC
contacted you by Fax regarding claim W215732. She sent you a memo
referenced W215732 sent to her by Mr Barr dated February 27th 1996.

In his memo Mr Barrs affirms that.

"Mr Robinson did not claim that his problems had been caused by
either the demolition or redevelopment contract," and that. "The
problem occurred sometime before either the demolition or
redevelopment contract" and that the problem was related to. "Work
carried out on what was presumably a former party wall and is now
the gable wall of the dwelling."

You formulated a series of questions from and, based on Mr Barrs
memo to be sent to my solicitors

On March 8th 1996 you wrote to Ms Smith in a letter headed, Claim
No W215732 Robinson, and enclosing your proposed reply to my
solicitors - W215732/TSH/BN/lt7 March 20th 1996 - your letter
clearly refers to the alleged damage to my property caused when the
party wall was transformed into a gable wall -

"the work carried out on what is now the gable wall of 19 Lime
Grove"

- and therefore, claim W215732 is with regard to the alleged
transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21 Lime Grove into
a gable wall - which neither Fawley or GTB Demolition Ltd were
involved in as it never occurred - and not the damage caused by the
demolition of the maisonettes

I formally ask that you confirm claim W215732 was not with regard
to damage to my property caused by the demolition of the
maisonettes at Kepler Street in March 1994 but damage allegedly
caused by the transformation of the party wall between 19 and 21
into a gable wall at some earlier time and, evidently was made in
1993 based on letters I wrote to SMBC at that time. I also request
that you inform me if claim W215732 was a formal claim against
SMBC.

I enclose an OS map of 19 and 21 Lime Grove from the 1960's proving
unequivocally that no such transformation of a party wall into a
gable wall could have occurred, and Mr Barrs affirmation to my
Solicitors dated March 7th 1995 declaring survey information about
this damage (which was, and never could have been taken) indicated
this damage had occurred prior to 1994.

ON SEPTEMBER 3RD 2003 MR BARHAM WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER RECEIVED ON 11 AUGUST. WHEN I WROTE TO
YOU ON 23 JULY I SENT YOU COPIES OF ALL THE PAPERS YOU HAD SENT US
SINCE JUNE WHICH WAS YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH US THIS YEAR. I AM NOW
ENCLOSING COPIES OF ALL THE LETTERS AND OTHER PAPERS YOU HAVE SENT
US SINCE 23 JULY 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 4TH 2003 IN A LETTER REFERENCED W215732, AON'S MR HOPE
WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME FROM AON,S MANCHESTER ADDRESS:

"I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MATTER IS NOW BEING DEALT WITH BY OUR
OFFICE IN SHEFFIELD AND THEY WROTE TO YOU ON 1ST SEPTEMBER 2003."

ON SEPTEMBER 5TH 2003 MERSEYSIDE POLICE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I HAVE FULLY INVESTIGATED YOUR ALLEGATIONS OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL
CONDUCT BY SEFTON MBC'S EMPLOYEES AFTER OUR MEETING ON 22 JULY.
YOUR ALLEGATIONS SURROUND THE FACT THAT REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY
THEN TO A 'CLAIM' THAT THEY ALLEGE YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST THEM. YOU
DISPUTE EVER HAVING MADE ANY CLAIM. AS A RESULT OF OUR MEETING I
CONTACTED MR WILLIAMS FROM SEFTON MBC. HE INFORMED ME THAT LETTERS
THAT YOU HAD WRITTEN TO THEM HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A CLAIM AGAINST
THEM. I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN THIS
MATTER AND I TELEPHONED YOU THE FOLLOWING DAY AND LEFT A MESSAGE ON
YOUR ANSAPHONE, AS YOU REQUESTED, TO THAT EFFECT. THIS IS THE END
OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION. I WILL NOT ENTER INTO ANY FURTHER
COMMUNICATION WITH YOU IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER AND I SUGGEST YOU
CONTACT A SOLICITOR IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER ADVICE:

ON SEPTEMBER 25TH 2003 I WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MRS THOMAS THE LGO:

On December 18th 2000 I wrote the following to you:-

"There is now another issue that I wish to make a complaint about,
this is that the Council have issued a 'claim' or 'potential claim'
to their insurers in regard to my property, based on information
known by then to be false."

This was acknowledged on December 21st 2000.

This became formal complaint: 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc - then
00/C/17558/CSO/pmc, which was rejected by your office.

The only reason for this rejection - that I was ever informed of -
was contained in a letter, written to Mr Oxley by Sefton Councils
Legal Director, Mr Bownes on March 15th 2001, which I contested,
but was evidently not considered by yourselves, i.e. on March 27th
2001 I wrote the following to Mr Oxley:-

"My complaint is that SMBC issued claims to their insurers about
damage to my property which contained information known to SMBC, at
the time they issued these claims, to be untrue."

Will you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that this letter
from Mr Bownes to Mr Oxley of March 15th 2001, confirming that
these claims had been made, was the only reason for the rejection
of complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc - 00/C/17558/PAT/pmc.

The matter of false claims is now in the hands of the court and I
need to confirm that I have had complaint 00/C/17558/CSO/pmc
rejected on the basis of Mr Bownes letter.

ON OCTOBER 6TH 2003 MRS THOMAS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"I CANNOT SEND YOU ANY INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH HAS
ALREADY BEEN SENT TO YOU. NOR CAN I ALLOW ANY MORE OF MY OFFICERS
TIME TO BE SPENT ON THIS MATTER. FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU
MAY NOT RECEIVE A REPLY."

ON OCTOBER 15TH 2003 ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO
'STEVE', AND COPIED TO SEFTON'S MS SMITH UNDER THE REFERENCE'S
W215732 (JANUARY 1ST 1994) AND RR98XN (JANUARY 17TH 1994)."

"I ENCLOSE A COPY OF MR ROBINSONS LATEST LETTER WHICH WE RECENTLY
RECEIVED TOGETHER WITH OUR RESPONSE ON 10 OCTOBER. IN VIEW OF THE
LONG STANDING CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY FURTHER
CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR ROBINSON,"

ON OCTOBER 30TH 2003 MY SOLICITORS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE N MY BEHALF:

"WE WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD CLARIFY WHETHER YOUR
REFERENCE RR98XN, IS IN FACT A REFERENCE TO A CLAIM WHICH ALSO HAS
THE CLAIM NUMBER RR98XN."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 ROYAL 7 SUNALLIANCE WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO MY
SOLICITORS:

"in response to your query "W215732" is the reference used by our
insureds brokers, Aon to identify this particular matter. our
reference for the same matter is "RR98XN". there was a previous
reference or claim number that was used in connection with this
matter by ourselves and that was "31/AT01939/96".

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 SEFTONS DATA PROTECTION OFFICER RECEIVED THE
FOLLOWING IN A LETTER TO HER FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION
REGARDING MY DATA SUBJECT APPLICATION FOR MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
FROM1994 REFERENCED 03_36590/06/AD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO
ME IN MARCH 2003, AD STATED:

"MR ROBINSON HAS ALLEGED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED A COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO HIS SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST///MR ROBINSON CONTENDS THAT
HE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY INFORMATION FROM 1994...MR
HUFF'S...RESPONSE TO MR ROBINSON CONCERNS THAT MISSING INFORMATION
FROM 1994...A NUMBER OF INFERENCES COULD BE TAKEN FROM MR HUFF'S
RESPONSE. THESE INCLUDE:

THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994.

THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED BY
AN EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE DPA.

ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD RELATED TO 1994 IS NOT HELD AS PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

I WOULD BE GRATEFUL, THEREFORE, FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY MR
ROBINSON HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY PERSONAL DATA HELD ABOUT
HIM FROM 1994..I WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDED ME WITH
CLARIFICATION...HE IS ENTITLED TO A RESPONSE WITHIN THE NEXT 28
DAYS."

ON NOVEMBER 26TH 2003 MR BENTON MP WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"Correspondence that I have copied to Council Officers was in an
effort to work with them to try to resolve your ongoing
problems...it-is only by copying your letters to the Council that
the gist of your complaints and queries could be adaquatly relayed
to them."

ON DECEMBER 8TH 2003, WITH REGARD TO A COMPLAINT I HAD MADE TO MY
SOLICITORS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE, THEY WROTE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING AN HOUR LONG TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I HAD
HAD WITH THEM:

"YOU WILL RECALL...I ADVISED YOU TO WRITE TO ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
AND SEFTON REQUESTING CONFIRMATION AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE PREPARED
TO PROVIDED YOU WITH DETAILS OF ANY CLAIM WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT BY YOURSELF AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS...IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 14 DAYS THEN YOU
WOULD ASSUME THAT NO SUCH ACTION EXISTED AND FURTHERMORE YOU WOULD
RELY UPON THOSE LETTERS WHEN ATTENDING BEFORE A DISTRICT JUDGE."

THESE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN AND NO EVIDENCE OF WAS, OR EVER HAS BEEN
PROVIDED BY SEFTON TO JUSTIFY CLAIM W215732 DATED 1993, JANUARY 1ST
AND 17TH 1994 (RR98XN).

ON JANUARY 28TH 2004 ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE WROTE TO ME, WITH REGARD
TO CLAIM RR98XN DATED JANUARY 17TH 1994, STATING:

"WE HAVE SENT YOU ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION DATA IN NOVEMBER
2003 IT IS THEREFORE THERE IS NO WITHHELD 'DATA' TO SEND TO YOU."

SUBSEQUENTLY BOTH SEFTON (ON MAY 1ST 2002) AND ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE
(ON AUGUST 7TH 2001) VERIFIED SEFTON CEASED TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY
THEM ON DECEMBER 14TH 1993 WHEN THEY "LOST CONTROL OF THE LAND TO
MARITIME HOUSING ASSOCIATION."

ALL THESE FACTS ARE WELL KNOWN TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT SEFTON KNEW IN FEBRUARY 2003:

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR JANUARY 24TH 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Freedom of Information
legislation now in force. I request copies of ALL my correspondence
to the Council to check what you have and have not received to
compare it with the information you send. I request ALL information
you hold on any claims and settlement of claims held by your
Finance Department and allegedly made by myself.

LETTER TO SEFTON COUNCIL 1ST FEBRUARY 2003

Will you please send me ALL information held by yourselves to which
I am entitled to request under the Data Protection legislation now
in force. I request copies of all my correspondence with regard to
claims and settlement of claims held by your Finance Department,
also information of how the alleged settlement of a claim,
regarding my gable wall in 1997, referred to by Mr Barr on January
2000, (Ref: GRB/JBJ/HSG1187) was made and to whom ? I have none of
this correspondence. I also request a copy of a letter from the
Council to Maritime Housing stating I had made a claim for damage
to my gable wall in 1993.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS FEBRUARY 8TH 2003

With regard to my request for ALL information I am entitled to
under the DATA PROTECTION ACT I enclose a cheque for £10 which I
believe is the correct fee. I especially request that ALL
information regarding claims against the Council and their
settlement be forwarded to me with any correspondence regarding
these claims that was sent to third parties and any notes which
were added to files or computer records.

LETTER TO SEFTON FEBRUARY 14TH 2003

Will you write to me and confirm that you have received both my
application and payment of £10 for information under the DATA
PROTECTION ACT, dated February 8th 2003.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 20TH 2003

I asked not only for information held by the finance department. I
asked for ALL information I was entitled to under the data
protection act to be provided. This means All information not only
that held with regard to claims held by the Finance Department as
you appear to believe. I have been told by the Finance department a
summons was issued against me regarding Council Tax;- Summons No
2340104 at - The Law Court, Albert Road, Southport. I have written
to the court and they state "the summons No you have quoted does
not relate to one of our cases". Consequently I will not be
attending court.

LETTER TO SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 22ND 2003

I formally request that SMBC's letter to MHA, dated between 1st and
10th February 1999, be provided to me as part of my request, and
payment, for information under the Data Protection Act. I believe
that the Council has committed breaches of The Data Protection Act
and ask that you give a reasoned respond to the following to
explicate the matter.

Background

1. In about June 1993 I visited Sefton Councils (SMBC) Planning
department and saw plans for a proposed development of a new
housing estate on land adjacent to my property. This was proposed
to occur after the demolition of buildings adjoining my property
then in situ on the land. These plans show the gardens of the
proposed houses extending to my gable wall - evidently after the
removal of a nib wall and footings.

2. In August and September 1993 I expressed concern in writing to
SMBC I stated it appeared, from the plans, a nib wall and old
footings abutting my gable wall were to be removed during the
forthcoming development. On October 1st 1993, SMBC (Mr Barr) told
me the nib wall and footings abutting my gable wall should not be
interfered with during the development. This fully resolved the
matter.

3. On March 7th 1994 SMBC (Mr Barr) arranged to survey and
photographed my property. The nib wall is shown on some of these
photographs. This survey does not record any damage, cracking or
deterioration to my gable wall. At the outset of demolition of
buildings adjoining my property - [which occurred between March
14th and April 6th 1994] - the nib wall and footings were
photographed in situ.

4. On April 6th and 21st 1994 I reported to SMBC that my property
had been damaged during the demolition of the adjoining buildings -
[It was acknowledged on April 15th 1994 (pp Mr Barr), the one dated
April 21st 1994 was not.] There was no mention of demolition of a
nib wall in this correspondence. - [The nib wall was witnessed by
SMBC's contractors in situ on April 21st 1994.]

5. On July 4th 1998 I wrote to my solicitors reporting latent
damage to my property due to the demolition of the nib wall. This
damage was located at the point where the nib wall had been.

6. On January 27th 1999 I wrote to Maritime Housing Association
(MHA) regarding my property.

7. On February 1st 1999: MHA's Director of Development and Property
Services. (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that MHA's records showed the
land had been transferred to them in "mid 1995" and, citing SMBC as
their consultants, stated he would write to SMBC regarding the nib
wall. - [Between February 1st and 10th 1999 SMBC had clearly
responded to MHA.]

8. On February 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle,) after receiving
correspondence from SMBC, wrote to me with regard to the nib wall,
that. "Matters surrounding this particular wall began as early as
1993."

9. On March 4th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote to me that ;- It was
Fawley Construction Ltd - MHA's building contractor. - "Who was
responsible for our development at Kepler Street."

We (MHA and Fawley) are "all convinced that the "nib" wall was not
in existence when we took possession of the site." - [Possession
has been given by MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994.]

That I should be aware that MHA. "Were not responsible for the
demolition of the maisonette blocks which previously occupied the
site, following demolition by Sefton Council."

That "On the evidence I have it would appear, therefore, that the
"nib" wall was removed during the demolition contract." - [This
evidence would appear to be, based on SMBC\s letter of February
1999 to MHA attesting that SMBC were responsible for the damage to
my property caused by the demolition of the nib wall and, had
demolished it and the adjoining buildings in 1993 and, had owned it
until "mid 1995."]

That "I am taking the opportunity of copying this letter to Mr G
Barr at Sefton Council, so that he is fully aware of the
correspondence that has passed between us."

10. On March 10th 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) confirms that; "The
demolition of the maisonette blocks was carried out, under contract
by Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. I have previously confirmed that
this Association took possession of a cleared site."

"I am aware now of the nature of your enquiry, in that you are
alleging the "nib" wall was demolished after the site was cleared."

"Once again I am taking the opportunity of copying both your letter
and my response to George Barr at Sefton and also to Fawley
Construction." - [Thus SMBC (Mr Barr) knew in March 1999 that I was
alleging the nib wall was not demolished during the demolition of
buildings adjoining my Property in 1993 and, MHA were holding SMBC
responsible for its demolition prior to their possession.]

11.On October 22nd 1999 MHA (Mr Quayle) wrote stating he had.
"Found a letter from Sefton, written to me in February 1999 in
which it is stated;" - [From the above it was apparently written by
Mr Barr.]

"The whole issue of damage to your gable wall appears to go back to
1993."

"That you had a claim against Sefton Council at that time." [i.e.
In 1993.]

That this claim was due to. "Cracking and deterioration of your
gable wall" which had occurred due to. "Demolition of adjoining
buildings".

This letter from MHS to myself quotes verbatim from my
correspondence with SMBC dated August and September 1993. This
correspondence was written solely regarding SMBC's apparent
proposal to demolish the nib wall and remove the footings. - [There
was no demolition adjoining my property in 1993. No mention of the
nib wall is made between 1994 and 1998.]

12. On November 24th 1999 SMBC's Director of Technical Services (Mr
Williams, Mr Barrs superior) states, regarding SMBC's
correspondence to MHA of February 1999 that;

"As the appointed agents of Maritime Housing in respect of the
redevelopment scheme we have a contractual obligation to provide
information to them in respect of work carried out on their behalf;
and also in respect of any matter material to their interest in the
land being developed."

"Mr Barr had, on behalf of Sefton merely complied with his
contractual obligations."

That this information was supplied by SMBC to MHA in "good faith."
- [I also refer you to correspondence to Messrs Barr, Williams and
Heywood, SMBC's CEO, dated respectively; Barr
16/10/99-30/10/99-6/12/99. Williams 29/11/99. Heywood 18/1/00.]

Conclusions

With regard to the above it appears that the Council have breached
the following Principles of "The Data Protection Act 1998." The
reference numbers I use in brackets below are from the December
2001 issue of the "Legal Guide to the Data Protection Act". I
presume you are is au fait with the above1998 Legal Guide.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent (3.1.5)
to disclose to MHA the personal date (2.2) contained in my letters
of 1993 to them.

(ii) That it was known to SMBC that the provision of this personal
data to MHA was regarded by myself as being prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data was not provided to MHA in a fair and lawful manner
(3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not protect my vital interests, in fact it
worked against them. This I stated to SMBC in November 1999.

(iv) That the data provided to a third party (MHA) was not provided
within a reasonable timescale (3.1.7.7)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had obtained the data in 1993 for
the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent proposed
demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This matter was
fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October 1st 1993.

(ii) The data was used for a different, incompatible, unfair and
unlawfully purpose (3.1. 4) when it was stated by SMBC to MHA in
February 1999 to have been the basis of a claim for damage to my
property in 1993 which had not occurred in 1993.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to MHA for.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to MHA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a claim. This incorrect and misleading assertion
was not withdrawn by Mr Williams in November 1999 (3.4 [b].)

Fifth Principle: (3.5) The data was kept for longer that it was
necessary for the purpose it was provided for. - i.e. 6 years.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me.

Seventh Principle: (3.7) The data which was passed to MHA by SMBC
was done so in an unauthorised and unlawful manner.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 26TH 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th and 22nd
February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled to
under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with my previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurance managers AON.

Background 1. I have been notified by AON. (Mr Pearson, Claims
Adjuster) that, with regard to an "incident" dated January 1st
1994, a "public liability claim" (My Ref: W215732) was issued to
AON by SMBC. It is evident that this claim contained data which
caused AON to write to me advising me that I "seek legal advice in
connection with the same". This claim would appear to be connected
with damage to my property.

2. As January 1st 1994 was a bank holiday it is extremely unlikely
that any work was carried out on that day by SMBC - or anybody else
on its behalf - that would have given SMBC the legitimate reason to
send data, which identified me to AON, regarding the "incident"
alluded to and on which I should take - "legal advice."

3. Regarding the date of January 1st 1994, again, as it was a bank
holiday, there would have been no post that day and, therefore, it
may be that the claim for the "incident" had been delayed in the
Christmas post and, was the alleged claim notified to MHA in
February 1999 by SMBC as damage to my "gable wall," caused by the
"demolition of building adjoining my property in 1993".

4. If the "incident" reported to AON occurred on the land adjoining
my property, i.e. the Kepler Street site, and was that which
damaged my "gable wall" and was caused by the demolition of
"adjoining building in 1993" by SMBC. It is abundantly clear that,
that "incident" occurred prior to December 24th 1993 because, for
SMBC to make a legitimate public liability claim. This claim would
have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public liability
indemnity and any contractual obligation to AON - e.g. for any
claims regarding the land, a nib wall or my gable wall - ceasing on
December 24th 1993 and liability passing from SMBC to MHA on
[allegedly] December 24th 1993. [See letters to me from; MHA dated
February 1st 1999, Mr Williams dated September 26th 2000, Ms Swale
dated June 19th and August 8th 2001 and Mr Heywood dated May 1st
2002.]

I request that the data supplied to AON, which established January
1st 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent to me as part of
my request and payment for information under the Data Protection
Act.

Conclusion With regard to data supplied by SMBC to AON, which
clearly allowed AON to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached
The Date Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again
in brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to AON the personal data (2.2) [whether
true or false] to them.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to AON [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to AON by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) the data supplied to AON by SMBC [whether true or false,] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) If SMBC had obtained the data in 1993
for the sole purpose of resolving the matter of their apparent
proposed demolition of the buildings adjoining my property. This
matter was fully resolved by Mr Barrs letter to me dated October
1st 1993.

(ii) If (i) above is true. The data was used for a different,
incompatible, unfair and unlawfully purpose (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to AON to have been the basis of a public liability
claim, which may have been for damage to my property in 1993. NB,
SMBC have not given me a reason for this claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to AON by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive in relation to the purpose it was provided
to SMBC for, i.e. the resolution of SMBC's intentions regarding the
nib wall and footings.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to AON by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading with regard to the reason stated by SMBC.
i.e. that it was a public liability claim.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTON’S LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 1ST 2003

I write with regard to my letters to you dated 1st, 8th 22nd and
26th February 2003 concerning my request for ALL data I am entitled
to under the Data Protection Act. This letter should be read in
conjunction with previous letters on the matter and deals with
SMBC's insurers Royal SunAlliance (RSA.)

Background

1. I have been notified by RSA of a "public liability claim" (Claim
Number RR98XN,) with regard to an "incident" dated January 17th
1994 and told it was being handled by RSA on behalf of SMBC. RSA
gave me no indication what this claim was for. It is evident that
this claim contained data which allowed RSA to write to me asking
me to advise them if I was "represented in this claim". This
"incident", i.e. event or occurrence, would appear to be connected
with damage to my property on January 17th 1994.

2. As January 17th 1994 was, and still is, given by RSA as the
"incident" date regarding a public liability claim against SMBC, it
would appear the data that was supplied to RSA came from SMBC and
allowed RSA to identify me from it.

3. The reason for this public liability claim to RSA is not known
to me, however, It is abundantly clear that, the "incident" - which
occurred on January 17th 1994 - could not be the subject of a
legitimate public liability claim by SMBC because, for SMBC to make
a legitimate public liability claim. The "incident" which caused
the claim would have had to have been made prior to SMBC's public
liability indemnity ceasing on December 24th 1993 and, as you know,
liability passing from SMBC to MHA on December 24th 1993. [See
SMBC's (Mr Heywood, CEO) letter to me dated May 1st 2002.]

I request that the data supplied to RSA, identifying me and,
causing January 17th 1994 being applied to the above claim, is sent
to me as part of my request and payment for information under the
Data Protection Act.

Conclusion

With regard to data supplied by SMBC to RSA, which clearly allowed
RSA to identify me, SMBC appear to have breached The Date
Protection Act as follows. References to the Act are again in
brackets.

First Principle: (3.1) (i) SMBC did not obtain my consent
(3.1.1-3.1.5) to disclose to RSA my alleged personal data (2.2)
[whether true or false] to them, i.e. that I had made a claim.

(ii) This personal data SMBC provided to RSA [whether true or
false] was prejudicial to me.

(iii) The data [whether true or false] was not provided to RSA by
SMBC in a fair and lawful manner (3.1 and 3.1.4) and, did not
protect my vital interests, in fact it worked against them.

(iv) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC [whether true or false] was
not fair (3.1.7-3.1.7.1-3.1.7.2-3.1.7.3)

Second Principle: (3.2) (i) SMBC had not obtained the data
regarding an incident dated January 17th 1994 from myself or
anybody representing me, therefore by that virtue it could not be
used in a compatible, fair and lawfully manner (3.1.4) when it was
stated by SMBC to RSA to have been the basis of a public liability
claim.

Third Principle: (3.3) That the data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
irrelevant and excessive.

Forth Principle: (3.4) The data supplied to RSA by SMBC was
incorrect and misleading.

Sixth Principal: (3.6) The data was not processed with regard to my
rights (3.6.b[ii]) and has caused damage and distress to me
(4.2-4.2.1.)

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 5TH 2003

I write with regard to false and misleading and damaging
information supplied by the Council (SMBC) to Fawley Construction
Ltd and my former solicitors Canter Levin & Berg (CLB) between
January and March 1995 and Mr Benton MP on January 12th 2000.

1. In November 1991 a survey was conducted on my property by a
structural surveyor. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. He noted the gables structural fragility due to it
being free standing.

2. On February 7th and 16th 1994 I wrote to SMBC noting that
"demolition has now started on the development" and warning SMBC -
with regard to 1 above - of the problems demolition of adjoining
building may cause to my property especially my gable wall. This
demolition was the commencement of the first phase of the
development of the Kepler Street site. SMBC acknowledged my letters
on February 28th 1994.

3.On March 7th 1994 SMBC - as a result of 2 - above conducted a
survey of my property. This survey found no damage whatsoever to my
gable wall. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC knew the
development of the Kepler Street site had commenced prior to March
7th 1994 and at that time their own survey proved that there was no
damage to my gable wall.

4. Between March 14th and April 6th 1994 my property was damaged by
the demolition of buildings adjoining my property. On April 6th and
21st 1994 I notified and described this damage to SMBC's Technical
Services. - The above proves incontestably that SMBC's Technical
Services knew that my property was damaged by the demolition of
adjoining buildings between March 14th and April 6th 1994.

5. On April 15th 1994 SMBC's Technical Services acknowledged the
damage in 4 above. On October 24th 1994 I had this damage
quantified by a structural surveyor. Using SMBC's survey, taken on
March 7th 1994 during the development, he found some 30 changes for
the worse in my property. He recommended, in order to prevent a
claim, SMBC be contacted to ask them to provide a grant to repair
my property.

6. On January 26th 1995 my solicitors wrote to SMBC solely
regarding my structural surveyors report and my correspondence of
April 1994. Both regarding damage caused by the demolition of
buildings adjoining my property between March 14th and April 6th
1994. They suggested meeting to discuss the matter.

7. On February 17th 1995 SMBC (Mr Waddelow) wrote to CLB stating
that "damage if attributable to development is essentially a matter
between Householders and the developer concerned" The matter was
then passed to Technical Services. At this time Technical Services
had constructive knowledge my property had been damaged during
development due to my letters of April 1994.

8. Technical Services referred the matter to Fawley, MHA's
builders. Mr Fawley visited me on March 1st 1995 and states that
his visit was prompted by "a letter Sefton Council had received
from your solicitors dated 26th January 1995 regarding the
condition of your gable wall." He also states that I had told him
regarding my gable wall that "considerable worsening had occurred
during the demolition of the adjoining buildings." - There is no
mention of cracks to my gable wall in CLB's letter to SMBC of
January 26th 1995.

9. On March 7th 1995 Mr Barr stated to CLB that survey information
was taken of the property before redevelopment. In effect Mr Barr
is stating the survey by SMBC - taken on March 7th 1994 - had
occurred prior to development. - Mr Barr states that a claim for
damage to my gable wall was "settled off" in 1997.

11. On March 4th 1999, in a letter copied to Mr Barr, MHA (Mr
Quayle) states they have evidence that the demolition of buildings
adjoining my property occurred prior to their possession of the
site. - This evidence, which is clearly untrue, is confirmed by
MHA's CEO as being obtained by discussions with SMBC and Fawley and
from MHA's, SMBC's and Fawleys records. It will not be confirmed by
SMBC or Fawley.

Under 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the Data Protection Act - Date Subject
Notice. I request that SMBC ceases to process any information you
have obtained from Fawley Construction Ltd regarding myself as it
is untrue and misleading and has, and is likely to, cause me damage
and distress. I request that you notify all the other parties it
has been passed to that it is misleading and untrue. I also request
that SMBC ceases to process the information that a claim by me
regarding my gable wall was settled off in 1997 as it is untrue and
misleading, and inform my MP Mr Benton and any other parties it has
been passed to of this fact.

I request that you send me details of any further rights of access
to information under the Freedom of Information Act which may have
come into effect in March 2003, or where I may obtain a copy of
them.

LETTER TO MS ELWOOD SEFTONS LEGAL DIRECTOR MARCH 6TH 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Letter to Ms Elwood Seftons legal Director March 6th 2003

I write regarding correspondence between Fawley Construction Ltd
and the Council (SMBC) between January and March 1995. This
correspondence resulted in SMBC making false unjustified and
unsupported assertion to their insurance representatives regarding
a claim against SMBC. I refer you to my letters of February this
year to yourself related to the matter.

Background

1. On January 26th 1995 SMBC received a letter from my solicitors,
Canter Levin & Berg (CLB). This letter requested that SMBC indicate
- by reference to my previous correspondence with SMBC dated April
6th and 21st 1994 - whether they would consider funding repairs to
my property solely for alleged damage caused during the demolition
of building adjoining my property. What this alleged damage was,
and its cause, was known to SMBC from my correspondence to
Technical Services of April 1994. To resolve the matter CLB
suggested a meeting between my surveyor and SMBC. SMBC did not, as
requested, indicate if they would be prepared to fund repair to my
property or not but, state that this letter was a claim holding
SMBC responsible for "crack fractures" to my property which
allegedly only became known on receipt of this letter. [See above]

2. After telling my solicitors that the matter of damage to my
property was not essentially SMBC's responsibility but that of the
developers. SMBC contacted Fawley Construction Ltd. Fawley,
Maritime Housing Associations (MHA - the developers) building
contractors who, are said by SMBC's insurers, to be the ones
responsible for the alleged damage to my property between March
14th and April 6th 1994. In a letter copied to Mr Barr from MHA
dated March 4th 1999 it is clearly stated by MHA that. "The
Associations building contractor who was responsible for our
development at Kepler Street." This responsibility was stated by
MHA to have begun on possession by Fawley. Possession is given by
MHA, Fawley and SMBC as March 14th 1994. MHA have also stated to me
that. In March 1994 "Fawley took possession of the site." SMBC
assert the site was "handed back" to MHA on April 1st 1994. By whom
this handing back was done they will not say, however, it is
abundantly clear it was not "handed back" by SMBC as SMBC were
neither the owners or in possession of the site on April 1st 1994.
[See 2 above and SMBC's (Mr Heywood CEO) letter to me of May 1st
2003.]

3. On March 1st 1995 I was visited by Mr D Fawley, he did not
identify himself or give his name to me. He did however refer to my
solicitors letter to SMBC of January 26th 1995. Based on this
reference to SMBC I assumed he was a representative of SMBC. When
Mr Fawley - with regard to a "report" he stated he was to make -
began to ask me what I considered inappropriate questions about my
property I referred him, under my solicitors advice not to answer
verbal questions, to my solicitors for the answers. He then left.

4. On the day of the above visit by Mr Fawley, March 1st 1995, I
telephoned my solicitors and reported to them that a member of SMBC
had visited me and I had referred him to them. This message clearly
records that I did not wish SMBC to make the "report" referred to
by Mr Fawley. There is no mention of me arranging a meeting and,
given SMBC had already been asked to attend a meeting in my
solicitors letter, no logical reason why SMBC would ask Fawley to
arrange one to include SMBC.

5. On March 7th 1995 SMBC (Mr Barr) wrote to my solicitors
confirming that Mr Fawley had visited me "with a view to arranging
a meeting so the property could be inspected by all relevant
parties." Mr Barr states that (undated and unknown to me) survey
information was taken "before the redevelopment works" i.e. prior
to January 17th 1994, and it indicates that the "primary cause" of
damage to my property occurred "before the redevelopment works
commenced" i.e. prior to January 17th 1994. What this damage was or
what caused it is not mentioned. It appears to be damage SMBC state
to MHA, occurred in 1993.

6. In a letter to myself dated May 25th 1999 MHA state that,
"particular issues" over the matter of the nib wall, had been
"resolved." Clearly this is in line with Mr Barrs assertion of
January 12th 2000 when he refers to "damage to your gable wall
arising from the removal of the nibwall." And, confirms that SMBC's
Finance Department has a record of the "settling off" of a claim
for damage to my gable wall in August1997.

To better understand the reason why SMBC would refer my solicitors
letter (said by SMBC to be a claim against SMBC,) to Fawley. I
request that all correspondence regarding this matter and causing
Mr Fawley to visit me in 1995 are included in my request for
information under The Data Protection Act. It may transpire that
SMBC have breached The Data Protection Act by providing data to
Fawley regarding a claim against SMBC which identified me.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson

7 January 2009

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

Sorry for the duplication. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:

On October 7th 2004 Mr Gibson, a Sefton Council's Principle Legal
Assistant, wrote the following to the the Liverpool county court
office in claim LV306271:

" I enclose herewith a copy letter received from the Information
Service Director in relation to enquiries being carried out by the
Information Commissioners Office. I would be obliged if you would
place the said letter before the District Judge for the hearing on
the 14th October at 10am."

THIS LETTER STATED"

"Having discussed this case with the Information Commissioners
office, they have agreed in writing that the data sought by the
complainant is not held in a relevant filing system and that it
does not fall under the scope of the Act. they went on to confirm
that Sefton council had discharged its obligations under the Data
Protection Act in respect of the complainants subject access
request and no further action is required. Yours sincerely Doug
Sheen Information Services Director."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, THE IC FIRST SUGGESTED TO SEFTON COUNCIL
THAT THEIR MR HUFFS LETTER TO ME DATED MARCH 27TH 2003 - REGARDING
SOME 700 DOCUMENTS OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994 ALLEGEDLY
HELD IN TWO BOXES IN THE COUNCIL'S INSURANCE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENTS - COULD POSSIBLY HAVE FALLEN UNDER THE FOLLOWING
REASONS NOT TO PROVIDE THEM TO ME UNDER THE DPA:

1. THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994,

2. THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED
BY N EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE APA,

3. ANY PERSONAL DATA RELATING TO 1994 IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT
FILING SYSTEM.

IN AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT DATED JULY 19TH 2004 IN CLAIM LV306271,
THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, MS ELWOOD, STATED THE FOLLOWING TO THE
COURT REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS FROM 1994:

"THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED ARE DOCUMENTS WHICH
THE DEFENDANT SAYS THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ARE BY THEIR
NATURE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS...THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS NOT GOT ARE
PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AND HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A RELATIVE FILING SYSTEM...THE
COUNCIL HAS NEVER PROCESSED ANY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE
CLAIMANT THIS CAN ALSO BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE "DURANT"
CASE...THE COUNCIL IS NOT PREPARED TO SEND COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION...THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS
RULED THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT HOLD A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

THAT "RULING" BY THE COMMISSION THAT MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM
1994 "RUNNING TO 700 DOCUMENTS HELD IN TWO BOXES BY THE COUNCIL"
HAD BEEN "HELD BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM" WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO ME.

Clearly my FOI request is asking a question which falls within the
FOIA that the IC knows the answer to, i.e:

"Will you confirm or deny covert correspondence and meetings
between a data controller and the IC regarding a DPA subject
request, SHOULD BE lawfully disclosed to the Applicant at the time
it is being exchanged."

THEREFORE, YOUR RESPONSE:

"Therefore we are not looking into the complaint which you made to
the Information Commissioner's Office about Sefton Council in 2003
(our reference 03/63590/06/AD) and as we understand it this case is
closed."

IS NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF MY REQUEST AS I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN AN
ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE, AND NOT WITH WHAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT
OF THE IC's COVERT CORRESPONDENCE AND ADVICE TO SEFTON COUNCIL IN
1994,

AS NEITHER SEFTON OR THE IC CAN ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE EVER ANY "700" DOCUMENTS KEPT IN BOXES
BY SEFTON COUNCIL THAT RELATED TO MY PERSONAL INFORMATION WHICH,
WERE "HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO BE PRIVILEGED".

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

fred robinson

7 January 2009

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

Sorry for the duplication. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:

On October 7th 2004 Mr Gibson, a Sefton Council's Principle Legal
Assistant, wrote the following to the the Liverpool county court
office in claim LV306271:

" I enclose herewith a copy letter received from the Information
Service Director in relation to enquiries being carried out by the
Information Commissioners Office. I would be obliged if you would
place the said letter before the District Judge for the hearing on
the 14th October at 10am."

THIS LETTER STATED"

"Having discussed this case with the Information Commissioners
office, they have agreed in writing that the data sought by the
complainant is not held in a relevant filing system and that it
does not fall under the scope of the Act. they went on to confirm
that Sefton council had discharged its obligations under the Data
Protection Act in respect of the complainants subject access
request and no further action is required. Yours sincerely Doug
Sheen Information Services Director."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003, THE IC FIRST SUGGESTED TO SEFTON COUNCIL
THAT THEIR MR HUFFS LETTER TO ME DATED MARCH 27TH 2003 - REGARDING
SOME 700 DOCUMENTS OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM 1994 ALLEGEDLY
HELD IN TWO BOXES IN THE COUNCIL'S INSURANCE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENTS - COULD POSSIBLY HAVE FALLEN UNDER THE FOLLOWING
REASONS NOT TO PROVIDE THEM TO ME UNDER THE DPA:

1. THE COUNCIL HOLDS NO PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO
1994,

2. THE PERSONAL DATA ABOUT MR ROBINSON RELATING TO 1994 IS COVERED
BY N EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE APA,

3. ANY PERSONAL DATA RELATING TO 1994 IS NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT
FILING SYSTEM.

IN AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT DATED JULY 19TH 2004 IN CLAIM LV306271,
THE COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR, MS ELWOOD, STATED THE FOLLOWING TO THE
COURT REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS FROM 1994:

"THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED ARE DOCUMENTS WHICH
THE DEFENDANT SAYS THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ARE BY THEIR
NATURE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS...THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS NOT GOT ARE
PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AND HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE INFORMATION
COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A RELATIVE FILING SYSTEM...THE
COUNCIL HAS NEVER PROCESSED ANY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE
CLAIMANT THIS CAN ALSO BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE "DURANT"
CASE...THE COUNCIL IS NOT PREPARED TO SEND COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSION...THE INFORMATION COMMISSION HAS
RULED THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT HOLD A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM."

THAT "RULING" BY THE COMMISSION THAT MY PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM
1994 "RUNNING TO 700 DOCUMENTS HELD IN TWO BOXES BY THE COUNCIL"
HAD BEEN "HELD BY THE INFORMATION COMMISSION NOT TO FORM PART OF A
RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM" WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO ME.

Clearly my FOI request is asking a question which falls within the
FOIA that the IC knows the answer to, i.e:

"Will you confirm or deny covert correspondence and meetings
between a data controller and the IC regarding a DPA subject
request, SHOULD BE lawfully disclosed to the Applicant at the time
it is being exchanged."

THEREFORE, YOUR RESPONSE:

"Therefore we are not looking into the complaint which you made to
the Information Commissioner's Office about Sefton Council in 2003
(our reference 03/63590/06/AD) and as we understand it this case is
closed."

IS NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF MY REQUEST AS I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN AN
ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOVE, AND NOT WITH WHAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT
OF THE IC's COVERT CORRESPONDENCE AND ADVICE TO SEFTON COUNCIL IN
1994,

AS NEITHER SEFTON OR THE IC CAN ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE EVER ANY "700" DOCUMENTS KEPT IN BOXES
BY SEFTON COUNCIL THAT RELATED TO MY PERSONAL INFORMATION WHICH,
WERE "HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO BE PRIVILEGED".

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

ARE YOU REFUSING TO ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Internal Compliance Team,

I REQUEST AN INTERNAL REVIEW

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Trevor Craig

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 TREVOR CRAIG

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING:

I HAVE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER FROM THE IC’S MR VAN DAMMS
DATED JANUARY 12TH, POSTED ON JANUARY 14TH 2009 AND RECEIVED TODAY,
JANUARY 15th 2009, EVIDENTLY A FILE THE IC HAS A ON ME FROM WHICH
MR VAN DAMMS HAS EXTRACTED INFORMATION REGARDING MY COMPLAINT ABOUT
MY PERSONAL DATA SEFTON MBC WITHHELD FOR YEAR 1994.

THIS COMPLAINT I HAD AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL IN 2003, REFERENCED
03/36599/06, WHICH MR VAN DAMMS WAS INVOLVED IN WITH HIS LINE
MANAGER MR BLOOMFIELD FROM 2002, CULMINATED WITH THE “DURANT”
RULING BEING PROVIDED TO SEFTON BY MR VAN DAMMS IN 2003 WITH REGARD
TO A: RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM OF MY DATA CONSISTING OF SOME 700
DOCUMENTS AND, AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DISCLOSING DATA HELD BY ROYAL &
SUNALLIANCE SUBSEQUENTLY USED BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE IN A CLAIM
AGAINST THEM FOR PROCESSING MY PERSONAL DATA WITH SEFTON COUNCIL
REGARDING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM(S).

THESE FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIM(S) BY MYSELF AGAINST SEFTON
COUNCIL WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE BY

TWO LETTERS DATED AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1993FROM ME TO THE COUNCIL.

THE ALLEGED CLAIMS THAT AROSE FROM THOSE LETTERS WERE ALLEGEDLY
MADE BY ME FOR DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY WHEN I DID NOT LIVE IN IT
CAUSED DEMOLITION OF NONE EXISTENT BUILDINGS IN THE 1960’S WHEN,
SEFTON AND THE LAND REGISTRY SAY, 19 LIME GROVE WAS ATTACHED, OR
ADJOINED, TO 21 LIME GROVE BY A PARTY WALL.

THIS ALLEGED CLAIM WAS REFERENCED AND DATED BY SEFTON AND THE AON
CORPORATION AS JANUARY 1ST 1994 AS A PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM AGAINST
SEFTON WITH A RESERVE ON IT.

THE SAME CLAIM WAS REFERENCED AND DATED BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AS
RR98XN JANUARY 17TH 1994, FOR DEMOLITION OF MAISONETTES ON LAND
ADJOINING 19 LIME GROVE IN MARCH TO APRIL 1994.

MY SOLICITORS ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED FOR THIS DAMAGE ON JANUARY 26TH AND
NOVEMBER 29TH 1995.

THIS CLAIM IS REFERENCED W215732 BY AON FEBRUARY 20TH 1996 AND AS
AT01939 BY ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE AND ALLEGEDLY MADE BY.

A LETTER FROM MY SOLICITORS DATED NOVEMBER 29TH 1995.

IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 18TH 2000 FROM MYSELF TO SEFTON’S TECHNICAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR WILLIAMS

ANOTHER CLAIM WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY ME AGAINST SEFTON COUNCIL
REGARDING LATENT DAMAGE TO MY GABLE WALL CAUSED BY THE REMOVAL OF
SUPPORT, WHICH MANIFESTED IN JULY 1998.

SEFTON REFERENCE THIS CLAIM W215732 AND PROCESSED IT, IN MY NAME,
WITH ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE UNDER REFERENCE RR98XN.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN THE ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE CASE, THE DISTRICT
JUDGE STATED, IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS THAT THEY HAD BEEN MADE BY
MYSELF OR MY SOLICITORS AGAINST SEFTON, NOT IN 1994, BUT IN
NOVEMBER 1995 AND APRIL 2000:

“HE SAYS THAT HE NEVER MADE CLAIM W215732 IN 1993…BY VIRTUE OF TWO
LETTERS WHICH ARE, WHATEVER ELSE IS UNCERTAIN, THEMSELVES CERTAIN.
THE FIRST IS A LETTER FROM CANTER LEVIN AND BERG TO SEFTON MBC,
WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT ON 29TH NOVEMBER 1996. THAT
LETTER STATES IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH:

“Perhaps you would be good enough to indicate which Department of
the Council, either yourselves or the Technical Department, is
going to deal with this claim as if we do not receive a suitable
response we shall have no option but to issue court proceedings.”

THE SECOND IS A LETTER WRITTEN BY MR ROBINSON HIMSELF ON 18TH APRIL
2000 TO A MR WILLIAMS, REFERRING TO THE MEETING HELD THAT DAY:

“It is my belief that during the development of the Kepler Street
site carried out be Sefton MBC, Maritime Housing Association,
Fawley Construction, a nib wall abutting my gable end was
demolished and has caused damage to my property. I accept your
offer to have an independent survey conducted with a view to
establishing what if ant damage has been caused.”

IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THOSE LETTERS DID REPRESENT CLAIMS OR
POTENTIAL CLAIMS…POTENTIAL CLAIM DOES NOT, TO MY MIND, MEAN A
FUTURE CLAIM…WHAT IT MEANS ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY GIVE RISE TO
A CLAIM…WHEN I PRACTISED AS A SOLICITOR I HAD PRECISELY THAT
OBLIGATION, AND A FAILURE TO REPORT ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN
THEY BECAME KNOWN COULD LEAD TO ANY FURTHER CLAIM BEING MADE THEN
BEING AVOIDED BY THE INSURER.”

MR VAN DAMMS WHO COVERTLY COMMUNICATED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL IN 2003
SEEMS TO BELIEVE I AM QUESTIONING A DPA DECISION IN 2004 – 2004 IN
MY FOI REQUESTS WHEN, IN FACT I AM NOT – HE STATES:

“I am writing further to your recent emails sent to out Internal
Compliance team on 22 December 2008 and the 6 and 7 January 2009.
You continue to query at length our handling of your complaint
about Sefton in 2004 (case reference 03/36599/06). On 8 October I
wrote to you and advised you that the IOC would not be revisiting
this matter. This position remains unchanged. Our decision in this
case was clearly communicated to you in our letter of 30 April
2004. Almost 5 years have passed since then. It is simply not
practicable for us to review this case after this length of time.
We will not therefore be responding to any further questions you
raise about the actions we took and decisions we reached in 2003 –
2004 when handling your complaint. In your email you ask which
Government Department the ICO report to. The ICO is the UK’s
independent public body set up to promote access to official
information and protect personal information. The Ministry of
Justice is our corresponding department within Government.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Trevor Craig

MY FOI REQUEST DECEMBER 13TH 2008:

Can a public authority say a request that has been repeatedly made
to it and never answered, say that request is vexatious under the
Act.

IS NOT ANSWERED BY YOUR RESPONSE:

My role within the ICO is to respond to general questions concerning the application of the Freedom of Information Act and this is why I responded to your emails of 13 December and subsequent correspondence as you were asking about the application of section 14 of this Act.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Trevor Craig

MY FOI REQUEST DECEMBER 13TH 2008, PLEASE NOTE THE WORD 'CAN':

CAN a public authority say a request that has been repeatedly made
to it and never answered, say that request is vexatious under the
Act.

WHICH IS A GENERAL QUESTION, IS NOT ANSWERED BY YOUR RESPONSE:

My role within the ICO is to respond to general GENERAL QUESTIONS concerning the application of the Freedom of Information Act and this is why I responded to your emails of 13 December and subsequent correspondence as YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT about the application of section 14 of this Act....

WAS I ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear TREVOR CRAIG

WHY CAN'T YOU COMMENT ON THE CONDUCT OF MR DAMMS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMMISSION ?

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

HOW DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF VEXATION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO ME BELOW, APPLY TO ME ?

Heard on the papers at Procession House, London, EC4

1. On the 4 January 2002 a member of staff from Jobcentre Plus in
Dudley (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) was responding to a question about benefits received by Mrs
Hossack. The question was from solicitors handling a personal
injury claim involving Mrs Hossack. In the course of the call, the
member of staff disclosed that Mr Hossack was receiving benefits.
That disclosure was unauthorised and a breach of the Data
Protection Act.

2. Mr Hossack has been campaigning about that breach ever since.
The Department have investigated the breach, a number of times,
have admitted it, accepted responsibility for it, apologised for
it, and paid compensation to Mr Hossack for it. During the course
of his campaign, Mr Hossack has twice had the breach investigated
by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Administration (the
Ombudsman), whose recommendations the DWP have accepted and acted
upon.

3. Mr Hossack remains dissatisfied. He has engaged three firms of
solicitors at various times to act on his behalf. He has taken
counsel’s opinion. He has repeatedly threatened legal action,
though none has resulted. He has campaigned publicly, naming
individual members of DWP staff, accusing them of a variety of
criminal acts including corruption and fraud. He has leafleted
locally setting out his allegations; he has towed a trailer with
posters advertising his allegations around the town. More recently,
he has set up a website to publicise his allegations. The request
for information

4. Over the years, Mr Hossack has made many requests for
information to the Department, which have been answered to a
greater or lesser extent during the various inquiries and
voluminous correspondence generated by his campaign. One particular
issue that has concerned Mr Hossack is the identity of the employee
who made the disclosure (though in more recent correspondence to
the Tribunal, Mr Hossack asserts that he now knows the name, and in
any event is not – and never has been - interested in the identity
of the individual.)

5. One particular letter from Mr Hossack, of 12 March 2006 made
specific reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
requested “copies of the XXXX enquiry and YYYY enquiry
information”. These are two employees of the DWP who had
investigated Mr Hossack’s complaint in its early stages.

6. That request was refused on 11 May 2006 on the grounds that it
was vexatious and could therefore be refused within section 14 of
FOIA.

The complaint to the Information Commissioner

7. Mr Hossack complained about that refusal to the Information
Commissioner (IC). As part of its response to the Commissioner’s
investigation, the DWP prepared a lengthy account of the history of
the various complaints and correspondence, setting out their
analysis of why the current request should be treated as vexatious.

8. The Commissioner’s investigation was understandably protracted.
The Decision Notice, issued on 13 March 2007, found that “the
request was correctly refused as vexatious”, though it noted that
the DWP’s response had been given outside the 20 day time limit set
by the Act. No remedial action was required. The appeal to the
Tribunal

9. Mr Hossack appealed against the Decision Notice on 27 March
2007, on the ground that the Commissioner was wrong to describe his
request as vexatious. The DWP was joined as a party and directions
were given. The questions for the Tribunal

10. The legal framework is simple. Section 14 of FOIA states: (1)
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

11. The Act does not define vexatious further. The Information
Commissioner has published Awareness Guidance notes, no 22 of which
deals with vexatious and repeated requests. We found that a helpful
framework, though it is not of course binding on us. The DWP
referred us to a number of decisions dealing with vexatious in
different statutory contexts, including costs awards and vexatious
litigants. We found these interesting but not directly helpful. We
accept the DWP’s point that the consequences of a finding that a
request for information is vexatious are much less serious than a
finding of vexatious conduct in these other contexts, and therefore
the threshold for a request to be found vexatious need not be set
too high. Our context is different; and, as the IC points out in
his Guidance, it is the character of the request, which must be
considered, not the party.

12. That raises the question of how far the request must be
considered in its own terms, and how far it can be considered in
context. On its own, there is nothing in the wording or nature of
the request to suggest it could be vexatious. But there is no
reason to restrict consideration to what appears on the face of the
request, and it would be artificial to do so. Clearly, context and
history are important. To decide whether a request is vexatious
must include, for example, the effect on the recipient, and may
vary depending on who the recipient is, and when the request is
made.

13. We found the previous decision of the Information Tribunal in
Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner and London
Metropolitan University, EA/2006/0070 helpful. They considered a
number of factors in deciding that that request was vexatious:

i. There is no statutory definition for the term vexatious and its
normal use is to describe activity that is likely to cause distress
or irritation, literally to vex a person to whom it is directed.

ii. The fact that several of the questions purported to seek
information, which the Appellant clearly already possessed, and the
detailed content of which had previously been debated with the
University.

iii. The tendentious language adopted in several of the questions,
demonstrating that the Appellant’s purpose was to argue and even
harangue the University and certain of its employees and not really
to obtain information that he did not already possess.

iv. The background history between the Appellant and the University
... and the fact that the request, viewed as a whole, appeared to
us to be intended simply to reopen issues which had been disputed
several times before. Several of these factors are present in the
current appeal. We would add to the first factor that for the
request to be vexatious there must be no proper or justified cause
for it. A parking ticket may be likely to cause distress or
irritation and may vex the motorist who receives it, but, if
properly issued, should not be described as vexatious.

Evidence

14. This appeal was decided without an oral hearing. The parties
presented their evidence and submissions to us in writing. We do
not propose to set out the evidence in any detail, but having
considered all of it, we make the following findings.

15. Mr Hossack has already in one way or another during his lengthy
correspondence and the previous enquiries received the bulk, if not
all, of the information he now requests. We noted above for
example, his own statement that he now knows the name of the
employee who made the original wrongful disclosure.

16. The Department does not know with certainty who made that
disclosure, but on the evidence available, it is clear that the
identity of the individual has been known, on a balance of
probability, since soon after the first enquiries were made.

17. The Department’s initial responses to Mr Hossack were
misleading. They gave the impression that the employee involved
could not be identified. Moreover, they implied that full enquiries
had been made, when the third party, the firm of solicitors to whom
the disclosure had been made, had not been contacted.

18. Those matters were investigated and ruled on by the Ombudsman.
It was that second report, in February 2005, that lead to the
Department’s second compensation payment, making a total of £150.
We endorse the Ombudsman’s observation that “Jobcentre Plus [the
Department] could have handled your complaint better”.

19. We quote one or two examples of Mr Hossack’s correspondence,
almost at random, to give an indication of Mr Hossack’s approach:
from a letter to the Director of Jobcentre Plus, 1 April 2004: “I
have no intention at all of terminating any communication with the
Dudley Job Centre plus office, and intend to make further factual
comments in writing and verbal form. This to include leaflets given
out with the corrupt officers’ names upon them outside Job Centre
Plus on random days.” From a letter of 12 December 2005 “sent to
the list of government bodies who have become involved in this
saga.”: “My intension [sic] will also be to bring the complaint
back to local levels by naming and shaming the corrupt fraudulent
officers in my local DWP department being [two names are given] and
the corrupt data protection officer...”. Consideration and
Conclusion

20. Mr Hossack has been unwilling to let the matter rest, after the
second Ombudsman’s report, despite no new matters of any
significance having come to light since. He has relentlessly
pursued different members of the DWP staff with correspondence,
scattering his allegations of corruption broadly, and publicising
them vigorously both in the immediate locality and, through his
website, to the world. In his submission to us, Mr Hossack
explained his understanding of fraud: ”to give or provide
information that is untrue”. In this view of the world, every error
is fraudulent; and it is noticeable that Mr Hossack does not
attribute a motive, let alone any question of personal or financial
gain, to the employee who made the original disclosure, or those
who subsequently investigated it.

21. A recurrent feature of the correspondence are threats of
imminent legal action from Mr Hossack, often directed to
individuals, and couched in formal legal terms. Mr Hossack
explained to us that he meant nothing by this: “This I believe to
be a mere tool to get a response and that the threat is nothing
more than subliminal”. Another recurrent feature is the repetition
of increasing statements of financial loss which Mr Hossack
attributes to the Department’s actions in some way, rather than to
his own needlessly protracted campaign. At times Mr Hossack states
that he intends to sue to recover this money; at others, he denies
any question of financial interest.

22. Just as, over the years, Mr Hossack’s financial claims have
mounted, so has his deluded sense of the importance of the issues
at stake. For example, in a letter of 12 October 2006 to the IC’s
office: “I am afraid the matter has gone beyond the recognisable
simple mistake that was made.... . The matter concerned has now
become a matter of breach of convention of human rights Act under
loss of liberty as it is quite clear from information gained that
the conspiracy between the Ombudsman, DWP and Job Centre Plus
continues with unforgivable deceit, lies, fraud and corruption.” In
our view, far from a campaigner for truth and justice on behalf of
the public, as Mr Hossack portrays himself, he is more correctly
described as pursuing an unreasonable obsession.

23. Against that background, is Mr Hossack’s request for the
information contained in the two internal investigations vexatious?
Applying the second, third and fourth factors considered by the
Tribunal in the case of Ahilathirunayagam: (ii) Previous possession
of the information: Mr Hossack already had the substance of the 2
reports, and has debated their detailed content with the
department. (iii) Tendentious language: Mr Hossack’s request is
expressed neutrally, but the language of many of his past
communications has been tendentious, aggressive, threatening and
abusive. His purpose has been to harangue the department and its
employees, not to seek information he did not already possess. (iv)
Reopening issues: Mr Hossack endlessly wishes to debate the
circumstances of that original disclosure, each time magnifying its
importance and effects.

24. If we hesitate at all in describing the request as vexatious,
it is only because when considering the first factor, we have added
the qualification that the distress caused must be unjustified: (i)
activity that is likely to cause, without justification or proper
cause, distress or irritation: there is no doubt that Mr Hossack’s
request caused distress and irritation, but in the early stages at
least, Mr Hossack’s campaign was fuelled by the Department’s
initial misleading replies. In Mr Hossack’s view, this provides a
full justification for his subsequent and current allegation of a
corrupt cover up.

25. We reject that view. Whatever cause or justification Mr Hossack
may have had for his campaign initially, cannot begin to justify
pursuing it to the lengths he has now gone to. To continue the
campaign beyond the Ombudsman’s second report, when his complaint
had been exhaustively and externally investigated, and once the
Department had accepted the errors, apologised for them and paid
compensation, is completely unjustified and disproportionate.

26. We say that not just because of the wounding and intemperate
language which Mr Hossack uses on occasion, or the volume of his
correspondence, but because the original breach of the Data
Protection Act has lead to no discernible detrimental effects for
Mr Hossack. His privacy was certainly infringed, but he has
suffered no material loss, and has been appropriately compensated
for the invasion of privacy; and to the extent that the breach has
been publicised, that is entirely his own doing. (We have no
jurisdiction over matters of compensation, but we are not surprised
that the Ombudsman thought the relatively small sum of £150 was
appropriate.)

27. Seen in context, we have no hesitation in declaring Mr
Hossack’s request, in January 2007, vexatious. The Information
Commissioner was correct in reaching that conclusion in the
decision notice, which we uphold.

Costs

28. During the course of the appeal, Mr Hossack applied for costs
against the DWP and the IC; and the DWP applied against Mr Hossack.
The IC seeks no award. The Tribunal’s powers to award costs are set
out in Rule 29 of the Tribunal’s Enforcement Appeals rules 2005:

(1) In any appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may make an
order awarding costs –

(a) Against the appellant and in favour of the Commissioner where
it considers the appeal was manifestly unreasonable;

(b) Against the Commissioner and in favour of the appellant where
it considers that the disputed decision was manifestly
unreasonable;

(c) Where it considers that a party has been responsible for
frivolous, vexatious, improper or unreasonable action, or for any
failure to comply with a direction or any delay which with due
diligence could have been avoided, against that party and in favour
of any other.

29. We take (c), the only appropriate provision for an award of
costs between the appellant and the third party, to be restricted
to action during these appeal proceedings. We have no jurisdiction
to award costs because of a party’s previous frivolous, vexatious,
improper or unreasonable action. Our finding that Mr Hossack’s
request was vexatious has no bearing on consideration of costs.

30. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the IC is groundless and
is dismissed without further consideration. His claim against the
DWP (for £200,000 incurred since 2001) is based on various grounds,
most of them outside our jurisdiction. In a minor respect, the DWP
failed to comply with Directions from the Tribunal for exchange of
documents and submissions missing a deadline by some days. Even if
we were satisfied that with due diligence this could have been
avoided (and we are not so satisfied, having regard to the
explanation provided), we would not have awarded costs for a minor
breach which has had no bearing on the overall fairness of the
process and has not affected the other parties’ ability to present
their case. Mr Hossack’s claim for costs against the DWP is
dismissed.

31. The DWP claim their solicitors’ costs in conducting the appeal,
some £11,680, excluding counsel’s costs. The DWP argues that
because Mr Hossack’s request was vexatious, “it follows that this
appeal is also vexatious, improper or unreasonable”. As set out
above, we reject the suggestion that the character of the request
determines the character of the appeal. It is easy to see
situations where the Tribunal may find a request vexatious, but
does so only on balance, after anxious consideration. In such a
case, an appeal could not be said to be vexatious or unreasonable.
This is not such a case; given the history and context, the request
is clearly vexatious; “the Commissioner’s decision was manifestly
correct” as the DWP argue.

32. That finding might ground an award of costs in favour of the
Commissioner under Rule 29(1)(a) on the basis that the appeal was
manifestly unreasonable, but the Commissioner seeks no such award.
It is unclear whether Rule 29(3) allows us to award the costs of an
appeal to a third party on the grounds that the appeal itself was
manifestly unreasonable, as opposed to action within the appeal.
However, even if we decided that point in the DWP’s favour, a costs
award would be discretionary, not automatic (“the tribunal may make
an order awarding costs”).

33. In exercising our discretion, we take into account that in
appeals to the Tribunal costs are the exception, not the norm. It
is important that the public should not be deterred by the threat
of costs from approaching the Tribunal. Secondly, FOIA is new law.
The definition of a vexatious request is still unsettled: we have
not, for example, adopted the IC’s definition in his Guidance Note,
though we reach the same conclusion. We have found the request
clearly vexatious, but only after considering context and history.
On its face, it is a reasonable request.

34. Thirdly, considering the facts of this particular case, there
is our finding that the DWP’s initial replies to Mr Hossack were
misleading. We do not say that that justifies his subsequent
campaign, but it does mean that the DWP are not the entirely
innocent victims of a misguided appeal. At least initially, they
contributed to the force of Mr Hossack’s campaign.

35. Fourthly, there is nothing in Mr Hossack’s conduct of the
appeal proceedings which would give rise to any award, at least
until the later stages. His submissions repeat his misguided
allegations of corruption against the DWP, but that is part and
parcel of his case.

36. However, in the final stages of the appeal, he makes an
unpleasant and personal attack on the conduct and integrity of the
solicitor conducting the case for the DWP: for example, in the
“Conclusion” submitted on 4 November 2007. Allowing for the stress
of litigation, and the irritation no doubt caused by the DWP’s
missed deadlines, this is an improper way to conduct the action.

37. Even so, considering the first four factors above, we have
decided against a costs award. However, Mr Hossack should be aware
that he has escaped an award on this occasion by the narrowest of
margins, and he may not find another Tribunal, should he pursue a
comparable appeal again, as accommodating.

38. Our decision is unanimous.

Signed Humphrey Forrest Deputy Chairman Date 18th December 2007

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOR INFORMATION:

COVERT MEANS SECRET OR HIDDEN.

OVERT MEANS OPEN.

RECIPIENT MEANS SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES SOMETHING.

DATA SUBJECT REQUEST IS SOMETHING SENT TO THE RECIPIENT OF IT.

CONFIRM OR DENY MEANS TO GIVE A CONSTRUCTIVE ANSWER TO A REQUEST UNDER THE FOIA.

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2002:

May 7 – 14 – 22

July 15

August 6 - 22

Covert correspondence to Sefton Council from the IC January 5 2004.

ON FEBRUARY 23RD 2004 IN CLAIM LV 306271 ROBINSON V SEFTON MBC, SEFTON COUNCIL'S LEGAL DIRECTOR FILED AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT IN COURT WHICH THE COURT SAYS WAS A 'DEFENCE' (THE FIRST DEFENCE) REGARDING FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS W215732, RR98XN AND AT01939 STATING:

"These claims are now statute barred having been raised in 1995 and again in 1996...there is no obligation on the Council to notify third parties that any information is unreliable or unfounded...any claim that the Claimant may have in respect of his wall affecting his property is now statute barred...any claim in relation to data should be addressed to the Data Protection Registrar and is a matter of which the court has no jurisdiction"

Covert correspondence to Sefton Council from the IC March 1st 2004.

Overt correspondence from the IC to me - 2004:

March 3

April 8 – 14

ON APRIL 14TH 2004, ADDLESHAW GODDARD, A FIRM OF SOLICITORS - NOT ON THE COURT RECORD - SENT A "VERIFIED DEFENCE" TO THE COURT SIX DAYS OUT OF TIME IN CLAIM 4LV11339 ROBINSON V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE PLC STATING:

"ON OR ABOUT 20 FEBRUARY 1996 THE SUN ALLIANCE WAS NOTIFIED BY ROLLIN HUDIG HALL...OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON BY THE CLAIMANT [REFERENCED] W215732. SUN ALLIANCE'S REFERENCE RELATING TO THAT CLAIM WAS AT01939...ON OR ABOUT 13 JULY 2000 THE DEFENDANT WAS NOTIFIED BY AON CLAIMS MANAGEMENT...OF ANOTHER POSSIBLE CLAIM BY THE CLAIMANT [WHICH] AROSE OUT OF A LETTER DATED 18 APRIL 2000 WRITTEN BY THE CLAIMANT TO MR WILLIAMS, TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR OF SEFTON. THE DEFENDANTS REFERENCE IN RELATION TO THE SECOND CLAIM WAS RR98XN. THE DEFENDANT FIRST WROTE TO THE CLAIMANT IN RELATION TO THE SECOND CLAIM ON 7 SEPTEMBER 1994 STATING IT WAS NOW HANDLING THE MATTER ON BEHALF OF SEFTON...THERE FOLLOWED VOLUMINOUS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN...VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS WORKING FOR SEFTON, VARIOUS COUNCILLORS OF SEFTON, THE ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH INSURERS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, MERSEYSIDE POLICE, MR J BENTON MP, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRIME MINISTER. SOME OR ALL OF THIS LATTER CORRESPONDENCE WAS COPIED TO THE DEFENDANTS."

June 4

ON JULY 19TH 2004 SEFTON COUNCILS LEGAL DIRECTOR FILED AN UNVERIFIED 'DEFENCE' IN COURT (THE SECOND DEFENCE) STATING:

"The Claimant is a Local Authority who in 1993 were owners of the land...between January and April 1994, demolition took place of existing Council housing at that site culminating in redevelopment work on the site being completed on 26th September 1994...a claim was received from solicitors acting for the Claimant on 29th November 1995...and a claim number was allocated being claim number W215732...that claim is now statute barred...the Councils Technical Services Director met with the Claimant on the 18th day of April 2000 and advised him to seek independent legal advice in relation to his claim as at that date it was close to becoming statute barred...the Council paid for a survey to be carried out on the Claimants property...the Claimant has inundated the council with correspondence to its Technical Services Department, its Insurance Section,its Planning Department, its Chief Executive, its Legal Department, its Data Protection Officer its Councillors and the local member of Parliament in relation to a number of allegations against the Council in respect of claim number W215732 which the claimant has stated is a claim he did not make...a full investigation has been carried out by the Information Commission...the Information Commission have held that in respect of Mr Robinson's access request data held by the Council is not part of a "relevant filing system"...the Information Commission refers to the "Durant" case on the interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998."

THE OVERT PURPOSE GIVEN TO ME BY THE IC WAS THAT THE ONLY PERSONAL INFORMATION OF MINE BEING DISCUSSED WITH SEFTON COUNCIL WAS INFORMATION FROM 1994 WHICH, THE COUNCIL TOLD THE IC, CONSISTED OF SOME 700 DOCUMENTS.

THERE ARE AND NEVER WERE 700 DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN 1994, I.E 14 DOCUMENTS A WEEK FOR A WORKING YEAR AND THEREFORE THEY DID NOT FALL UNDER "DURANT" AS THEY ARE FALLACIOUS.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 Trevor Craig

YOUR RESPONSES:

10 JANUARY 2009:

"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. The answer to this question can be found in our guidance on section 14 to which I provided you with a link in my response to your first email."

JANUARY 19TH 2009:

"My role within the ICO is to respond to general questions concerning the application of the Freedom of Information Act and this is why I responded to your emails of 13 December and subsequent correspondence as you were asking about the application of section 14 of this Act. I cannot comment on any correspondence you have received from Mr van Damms or any previous case that you have had with us."

JANUARY 23RD 2009:

In your email you state that I have not answered your question: “can a
public authority say a request that has been repeatedly made to it and never answered, say that request is vexatious under the Act.” Although your two questions of 13 December where worded slightly differently
they were both answered by the guidance which I provided in my initial
response of 17 December."

YOUR DOWNLOAD OF DECEMBER 17TH 2008:

Service Standards

December 2008

Written complaints and enquiries – how we deal with them How long it takes us to deal with your case will depend on whether we are able to accept your complaint or enquiry and how complex it is. We have produced the attached guide to help explain the different types of cases we deal with and how we progress them. Below is information about how long it currently takes us to deal with ALL the complaints we receive under the legislation we regulate.

Written complaints about DP and PECR

Type of complaint % of complaints dealt with within 30 calendar days of receipt

(Mostly dealt with by our Case Reception Unit) % of complaints dealt with within 90 calendar days of receipt % of complaints dealt with within 180 calendar days of receipt

Data Protection Act or Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations 7 82 95

Written complaints about FoI and EIR

Type of complaint % of complaints dealt with within 30 calendar days of receipt (Mostly dealt with by our Case Reception Unit) % of complaints dealt with within 180 calendar days of receipt % of complaints dealt with within 365 calendar days of receipt

Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations 44 71 81

Calls to our helpline

Our helpline advisers aim to provide a helpful and knowledgeable service and in the most cases your enquiry will be dealt with by the first person you speak to. Where this is not possible we may need to transfer your call to someone better placed to help you. If we need to call you back we will aim to do so the same business day or at a time more convenient to you.

Average number of seconds

Average waiting time before speaking to a helpline adviser 60

Requests regarding notification under the Data Protection Act

Type of request Turnaround time in working days
For a new notification 10-14

To renew a notification 4-7

To change or alter a notification 4-7

Complaints about our service

If you are unhappy with any aspect of the service we have provided, please see our case review and service complaints policy. This is available from our website, or you can ask our Helpline to send you a copy on 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 545 745 if you prefer to call a national rate number.

Explaining the different complaints and enquiries we deal with

We are able to deal with a great many of the complaints and enquiries we receive quickly. However, for a variety of reasons, some cases take longer.

Complaints and enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs).

Cases we can deal with quickly

These include:

• most enquiries about the application of the FoIA or EIRs;

• complaints where we need more information from you;

• complaints about a public authority failing to respond to your
request for information on time or in an appropriate fashion; and

• complaints that fall outside the Information Commissioner's remit and we are not required to investigate.

Cases of this nature are dealt with by our Case Reception Unit. Our aim is to deal with these cases within 30 calendar days of receipt. The percentage of all the cases we complete which are dealt with in this way is shown in column 1 of the FoI and EIR complaints table. This information is updated on the first day of every month.

Non-complex cases or cases where a precedent exists

If your case is accepted but cannot be dealt with by our Case Reception Unit we will write to you to confirm this and your case will be passed to one of our FoI casework teams. We will then consider whether the issues in your case can be dealt with using previous case law or precedent.

We expect cases of this nature to be dealt with in between 30 and 180 calendar days of receipt. Most of these cases are represented in column 2 of the FoI and EIR complaints table.

Complex cases

If your case raises issues for which there is no previous case law or precedent, it will be placed in a queue to be allocated to a caseworker.
Regrettably, the number of cases in this queue is unacceptably high at the moment. We are doing all that we can with the resources available to reduce the number of cases in this queue and therefore reduce the length of time we take to deal with each case and reach a decision.
The average wait time for one of these cases to be allocated to a caseworker is currently over 180 calendar days from the date we receive it. These cases represent approximately 20% of the complaints we receive. If your case falls into this category our FoI Casework Team will write to you to explain this and will keep you updated. Most of these cases are represented in column 3 of the FoI and EIR complaints table.

Complaints and enquiries under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECRs).

Cases we can deal with quickly

These include:

• most enquiries about the application of the DPA and PECRs;

• cases where we need more information from you;

• cases where an assessment can be made relatively quickly and we do not feel the matters raised require further consideration or investigation by the ICO in line with our corporate aims and priorities; and

• cases that fall outside the Information Commissioner's remit and we are not required to investigate.

Cases of this nature are dealt with by our Case Reception Unit. Our aim is to deal with these cases within 30 calendar days of receipt. The percentage of all the cases we complete which are dealt with in this way is shown in column 1 of the DP and PECR complaints table. This information is updated on the first day of every month.

Complex cases

If your case cannot be dealt with by our Case Reception Unit it will be placed in a queue to be allocated to a caseworker. Cases of this nature usually take between 30 and 180 days to deal with and are therefore represented in columns 2 and 3 of the DP and PECR complaints table.

I REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONS CATHY HOWKINS DATED OCTOBER 21st 2006.

Your Ref: ENDO124895

1. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18TH 2006. FROM WHAT YOU SAY I UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING TO BE TRUE FOR A THING IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE;

(A) THAT SEFTON PROVIDED YOURSELVES WITH A NUMBERED LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN FEBRUARY 2003 THAT THEY INTENDED TO SEND ME IN RESPONSE TO MY DATA SUBJECT REQUEST.

(B) THAT WITH REGARD TO THOSE NUMBERED DOCUMENTS AND NO OTHERS, THE COMMISSION FOUND, IN FEBRUARY 2003 THAT THEY WERE ALL EXEMPT FROM THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES AS THEY WERE NOT HELD IN A RELEVANT FILING SYSTEM AND YOU PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION TO SEFTON PRIOR TO THEM PROVIDING ME WITH THE NUMBERED, UN- NUMBERED AND TWICE NUMBERED DOCUMENTS UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT, IN ACCORD WITH THEIR LETTER TO ME ON MARCH 4TH 2003.

2. YOU REFER TO MY ASSESSMENT REQUEST 30 -36599/06 AD WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION ON APRIL 1ST 2003. IN PART 6 THE REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT FORM, WITH REGARD TO SEFTONS "REFUSAL TO GIVE ME DATA FROM 1994 ON MARCH 27TH 2003" I GAVE THE CONTRAVENTION'S OF THE ACT AS;

(1) I WAS NOT TOLD WHO WOULD PROCESS MY DATA OR WHAT THEY WOULD BE PROCESSED FOR;

(8) I ASKED MY DATA CONTROLLER FOR A COPY OF MY DATA BUT HAVE BEEN GIVEN NONE;

I QUERIED IF

(9) THERE HAS BEEN AN UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OF DATA / BREACH OF SECURITY;

AT 6 (B) I PROVIDED A LETTER DATED MARCH 29TH 2003;

AT 6 (C) I STATED I "CANNOT DETERMINE WITHOUT DATA FROM 1994."

AT SECTION 10 OF YOUR REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT FORM I CONFIRMED I HAD NOT GIVEN PERMISSION FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT MY REQUEST.

3. ON APRIL 11TH 2003, AFTER YOU HAD YOU CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF MY REQUEST I SENT A FURTHER LETTER AND COPY OF MY LETTER OF MARCH 29TH 2003 TO YOURSELVES WITH A COVER LETTER AND ON APRIL 14TH 2003 YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT AND ALLOCATED IT THE CASE NUMBER 03/36599/06.

4. ON MAY 20TH 2003 I WROTE A LETTER DETAILING THE BACKGROUND FOR MY ASSESSMENT TO THE COMMISSIONS COMPLIANCE MANAGER MR HAWKES, OUTLINING WHAT I BELIEVED WERE SEFTONS BREACHES OF THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES. IN JUNE 4TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE TO ME STATING:

"I am unable to address your concerns that data from 1994 has been withheld. If you provide me with copies of correspondence relating to this subject access request I will be able to consider this matter."

5. ON JUNE 15TH 2003 I COPIED A LETTER REGARDING THE FALSE INSURANCE CLAIM W215732 FROM MYSELF TO SEFTONS CLAIMS MANAGERS, AON CORPORATE CLAIMS TO MR DAMMS, AND REQUESTED THE FORM TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION TO PROTECT MY DATA.

6. ON JULY 29TH 2003 I SENT A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF MY REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT TO MR DAMMS WHO, ON JULY 2ND 2003 WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

"It now appears clear that you have not any point made a claim against the Council and allege that the claims they refer to are falsified...I should point out to you that under section 14 of The Data Protection Act you may apply to a court for an order requiring the data controller to rectify. Block, erase or destroy inaccurate personal data...it would then be for a court to decide as to what the facts actually are and who, if anyone was responsible for the damage caused to your property."

7. WITH REGARD TO; THE COUNCILS ASSERTION ON MARCH 20TH 2003 THAT THE DATA THEY HAD PROVIDED TO ME WAS UNDER THE RUBRIC OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT;

THE EVIDENCE OF THE FALSE CLAIM W215732 I HAD RECEIVED FROM SEFTON AS A RESULT OF MY DATE SUBJECT NOTICE AND, NOW HAVING A CLEAR STATEMENT TO RELY ON FROM THE COMMISSION, SEEMINGLY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SENT TO THEM, AND SEEING NO REASON A COURT WOULD NOT REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS MR DAMMS:

ON JULY 28TH 2003 I MADE A CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON REGARDING THE INCORRECT DATA THAT I HAD MADE AN INSURANCE CLAIMS AGAINST SEFTON REFERENCED W215732 IN 1993. MY PARTICULARS OF CLAIM STATED:

"I believe that Sefton Council have acted in breach of the Data Protection Act by holding information about myself which is constructively known to be inaccurate, misleading and untrue and, which continued to be used for many years to my disadvantage. I have informed Sefton MBC of the facts which negate claim W215732 many times during the past, as evidenced by their Chief Executives letter to me of May 1st 2002. Note its allegation that it is I who made claim this claim W215732 of 1993. Since 1999 I have attempted to have the matter of claim W215732 resolved to no avail. Claim W215732 is clearly inaccurate. misleading and untrue and I request the court to have it rectified. I also request the court to order Sefton Council to notify all third parties that this inaccurate and misleading information was passed to, of its unreliability. This incorrect information has been used by Sefton Council from its invention to the present time. During this time Sefton Council have sought to create the impression to third parties, including my MP and Merseyside Police, that my actions have been questionable. I am not able to ascertain if this is a breach of my human right to fair treatment until the matter of the above incorrect information is resolved. Claim W215732 has become the bedrock claim for further alleged claims and incorrect information which is, in part reflected in the enclosed correspondence. The issues arising from the above requires that claim W2157632 be removed from the equation and laid to rest prior to further action."

8. ON AUGUST 26TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"You are of the view that you have not received a full response to your request... [On] 4 June I explained I would only be able to consider this matter if you provided me with copies of your letters and the Councils responses...it is clear that you have received some responses from the Council. In order to assess the matter I will need sight of those letters so as to have a full picture of how your subject access request has been handled...finally on the issue of claims that you may or may not have made against the Council regarding damage caused to your property...it would then be for a court to decide as to what the facts actually are and who, if anyone was responsible for damage caused to your property."

9. MY CLAIM WAS SERVED ON SEFTON ON AUGUST 29TH 2003, AND ACKNOWLEDGED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH 2003 WITH THE RESPONSE THAT THEY DID NOT INTEND TO DEFEND THE CLAIM, BUT DID INTEND TO DISPUTE THE COURTS JURISDICTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

"From what the defendant can understand from the claimants claim the cause of action relates to either a matter that is now statute barred or to a matter which remedy lies within the data protection register."

THE COUNCIL MADE NO REFERENCE IN THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO MY DATA FROM 1994, - WHICH DATA HAD AT THAT TIME NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME IN THE NUMBERED FORM, OR OTHERWISE AND SENT TO YOURSELVES BY SEFTON PRIOR TO IT BEING RELEASED TO ME IN MARCH 2003 - NOT BEING PERSONAL DATA: NOR THAT THE COMMISSION HAD, IN YOUR WORDS BEEN, WITH REGARD TO THE DATA FROM 1994:

"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 that 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...during the course of our investigation, Sefton MBC confirmed that the missing documentation (the information that was not provided to you in response to your subject access request) was not held in a relevant filing system...we can only confirm that the missing documents were not held in a relevant filing system and therefore that you were not entitled to copies of this information under the Data Protection Act 1998 at the time of your request."

10. ON SEPTEMBER 29TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"The issue of falsified claims forms is just one facet of this lengthy dispute. We consider the court would be the most appropriate authority to judge on the facts of the matter...as an individual you may exercise your rights under section 14 of the Data Protection Act...it would be for the court to judge as to what the facts of the case are, whether the claim are falsified and constitute inaccurate personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and to order any remedial action which may be required. The only issue I intend to keep open is that of your subject access request to Sefton Council."

ON OCTOBER 30TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"If the Council has indicated to you why information has been withheld I need to know what reason the Council has given...the question you raise about numbering of documents and the purpose for which each document is processed is relatively unimportant in this instance...I will wait to hear from you further before addressing this matter with the Council."

ON NOVEMBER 25TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"The important issue here is that you received full access to all the information you are entitled to from Sefton Council...the copy letter you have enclose indicates that it is the Councils view that it has discharged its obligation with regard to your subject access notice...whether the documents are numbered or not is not of importance. The key issue is that you are provided with the personal data you are entitled to in response to your subject access request...the one issue I can address with the Council is that of missing documentation of 1994. And I must stress that this is the one and only issue which I am able to raise with the Council in this instance. Although in his letter to you of March 27th 2003 Mr Huff confidently states that you have been provided with all the information you are entitled to in response to your subject access request, he does not actually confirm whether any information is held from 1994, and if it is, why it does not fall to be covered by your subject access request. I will write to the Council and seek clarification on this point and ask for their assurance that you have received all of the information you are entitled to in response to your request. I will write again when I am in receipt of a response from the Council."

ON DECEMBER 10TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"I have explained to you what issues I am able to raise with the Council. In this particular case I have addressed your concerns that you have not been provided with any data relating to 1994 by the Council...I have asked...for their assurance that you have received all of the information you are entitled to in response to your subject access request...in order to establish whether you have been provided with all of the information you are entitled to in response to your subject access request and so I can assess whether the Council has complied with your request in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act."

ON DECEMBER 18TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"I notice you are requesting copies of all correspondence exchanged between myself and Sefton Council in relation to your Request for Assessment. I have only sent one letter to Sefton and am waiting for a reply...I have taken the decision...not to provide you with a copy of this letter in this instance...I notice that you also have concerns about the accuracy of Council Tax Records held by the Council. Your concern appears to relate to the way in which the Council calculated your benefit entitlement. I am only able to advise you that the way that the Council calculate their benefit entitlement is not a data protection matter...I will write to you again specifically regarding your subject access request."

ON MARCH 1ST 2004 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"I am still waiting for a response from Sefton Council on the issues outstanding from your subject access request...I have warned the Council that should I not receive a response from them within the next 14 days I will begin drafting an information notice which will compel them to provide me with the answer I require under the order to complete my assessment. I will write to you again when I receive a response from the Council."

ON MARCH 29TH 2004 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"I have had further contact with the Council and expect to receive a written response from them on the issue of the issues outstanding from your subject access request by the middle of this week...I will write to you again upon receipt of a response from the Council...thank you for your continuing patience in the course of this assessment."

ON APRIL 30TH 2003 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"I am now in receipt of a substantive response from Sefton Council regarding your subject access request...the council has taken the view that any outstanding information which may have not been made available to you is not part of a relevant filing system. New case law has provided clarification of what a relevant filing system is...The Council has indicated that any missing documentation would be held within two large manual box files...it appears that the 'missing' information you are contesting falls outwith the scope of the Data Protection Act. Consequently the Council is not under any obligation to provide you with any further information as it has already fulfilled its duties in respect of this subject access request. This being the case, I regret there is no action this office can take in respect of your Request for Assessment."

AFTER OVER TWO YEARS SINCE MY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE COMMISSION, ON MAY 11TH 2004, MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"The information available to me points to the Council having discharged its obligations in respect of this."

ON MAY 18TH 2004 MR DAMMS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME REGARDING MY SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST REFERENCED 03- 36599/06/AD:

"If you are unhappy with the outcome of your assessment and you wish for your case to be reviewed by my line manager please complete and return the enclosed complaint form which I enclosed with my previous letter of 11 May...if you continue to correspond with this office...your letters will be placed on file but will not be responded to."

ON MAY 18TH 2004 THE COURT MADE AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FROM 1994 IN MY CLAIM AGAINST SEFTON.

ON MAY 19TH 2004 I WROTE TO SEFTON REQUESTING DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

ON MAY 28TH 2004 MR GASKELL, SENIOR SOLICITOR FOR THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION WROTE TO ME STATING THAT LEGAL HELP MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR SENDING LETTERS THAT I COULD SEND MYSELF.

ON JUNE 15TH 2004 I HAND DELIVERED MY RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDERS TO SEFTON COUNCIL.

ON JULY 21ST SEFTON SENT THEIR RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER OF MAY 18TH 2003 TO ME.

ON OCTOBER 11TH 2004 SEFTON SENT ME A LETTER REGARDING THEIR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7TH 2004 WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOURSELVES.

AS INVITED TO DO SO BY YOURSELF. I NOW REQUEST COPIES OF ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE AND, IF ANY; FAXES, EMAILS AND TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORDS REGARDING MY REQUESTS TO THE COMMISSION, AND ALSO NOTIFICATION OF ALL DOCUMENTS OF ANY OTHER DESCRIPTION YOU HAVE SENT AND RECEIVED FROM SEFTON SINCE MAY 2002.

cc Liverpool County Court FAO Judge Fitzgerald

Sefton Councils Legal Director (letter only with a copy of Seftons March 4th 2003 letter)

ON OCTOBER 26TH 2006 THIS LETTER WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY CHRIS JONES, INFORMATION REQUEST TEAM.

ON NOVEMBER 10TH 2006 CATHY HOWKINS WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME”

“We do not, therefore, intend to answer any further queiries that you have in relation to case reference 03/36599/06/AD.”

ON NOVEMBER 16TH 2006 FAYE SPENCER, SENIOR CASE WORKER AND ADVICE MANAGER, WROTE THE FOLLOWING TO ME:

“Given that your letter of 21st October 2006 was only concerned with matters concerning Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, you referred only to case 03/36599/06/AD in your letter and we did not contact Sefton Council about your eailier complaint regarding Sefton Council (which was addressed under the reference 02-25247/06) we have supplied you with the communications we exchanged with the Council on relation to 03/36599/06.”

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson

Dear Sir or Madam,

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT ANSWER MY FOI REQUEST OR REVIEW IT.

Yours sincerely,

fred robinson