IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2017/0165

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

EXHIBIT 4
Correspondence / Representations to
Commissioner
 Page 1 of 1

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
To: <




@gmail.com>
Sent: 05 July 2017 11:00
Subject: ICO conclusions[Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr

I write further to my email to you of 27 March 2017 about your complaint against
the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO). I apologise for the
delay in responding, something to which the detailed investigations and
consideration by both ICO and JACO contributed.

The matter related to your concern at having your request for a case study and
connected information denied by JACO who relied on section 14(1) FOIA –
vexatious requests. We have investigated the matter and have had quite detailed
discussions with JACO about it and I am writing to tell you ICO’s conclusion.

Our discussion with JACO included further consideration by the Ombudsman

personally who has made clear to us that there is no prospect of his finding
maladministration in your case. In deciding this he has taken account of the
distinction between judicial decision and judicial case management on the one hand
and personal conduct on the other. You will recall that JACO did undertake a
preliminary investigation of your concerns, ie your matter has received very full
consideration within JACO. It is not appropriate for the FOIA regime to be used to
seek to reopen or prolong matters that have already been determined through the
proper channels.

JACO have also concluded that, as regards the slightly misaddressed letters, the
single digit error should not have precluded delivery but, like ICO, are prepared to
accept on a balance of probabilities the HMCTS evidence that the letters were sent
and your evidence that they were not received. The Ombudsman is clear that the
error, and the fact that the Humberside Advisory Committee did not email the
relevant letter to you, could not amount to maladministration.

For these reasons and those already set out to you in your correspondence with
JACO, they believe your request to have been vexatious and we are minded to
agree with them.

As to the way forward here, I note that you have recently had a section 14 FOIA
appeal to the Tribunal on a related matter turned down and understand that you
have at least one other section 14 FOIA matter pending there. In the circumstances
I would like to invite you to agree that we resolve this matter informally for now by
letting it rest here but with the proviso that, if the Tribunal find for you on another
section 14 FOIA matter, we will revisit this matter.

Yours sincerely

Roy Wernham

Roy Wernham
Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

01/08/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "


" <




lg@gmail.com>

To: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Sent: 05 July 2017 13:37
Subject: Re: ICO conclusions[Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr Wernham

From the content of your email I find it necessary to point out a number of matters that have been
misunderstood.

I note that from your discussions with the Ombudsman that he understands it to be my objective that his
finding of no fault in my case is overturned. I have expressed in my submissions that this is not what my
request intends to achieve. It is therefore by definition untrue that I am seeking to reopen or prolong matters
that are considered to have already been determined by the Ombudsman. Whether I want to obtain
information for the purpose of evidence gathering for another reason is for me. The evidence since obtained
goes beyond just the three letters which were produced for the purposes of the Ombudsman's preliminary
investigation into the matter. It is now evident that going back to 2013, the Justices' Clerk for Humber and
South Yorkshire who was dealing with both the Advisory Complaint and the High Court matter produced a
total of 10 letters, after various enquiries were made, which were never posted.

Example that there is a serious purpose

Despite having all the section 14 complaints upheld by the Commissioner concerning Humberside police,
NELC and the MoJ on the grounds that they had no serious purpose it is worth noting a Decision Notice dated
28 June 2017 (FS50622653) regarding Humberside police.

Ironically the outcome was useful, despite the Commissioner upholding the section 14 exemption. It revealed
(paragraph 24) that the same police officer who I had alleged to have inaccurately set out his statement in my
case to include the phrase "you can't make me" was involved in a separate incident where it was reported that
the exact phrase was used by someone who was subsequently convicted.

The possibility therefore is that the use of standard (not necessarily true) phases are incorporated into witness
statements to the detriment of the defendant. I have recently succeeded in having the Independent Police
Complaints Commission (IPCC) take over a complaint into this matter which Humberside police wrongly dealt
with by Local Resolution and had delayed its outcome by taking 510 days to complete. This information will be
provided to the IPCC and Criminal Cases Review Commission in support of my allegations against the police
for wrongful arrest, false statements and miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal's decision

Regarding the Tribunal's decision to dismiss my appeal (and the likelihood that it will dismiss any appeal I
submit), I do not consider this relevant. What matters is the fact that the requests are not vexatious as far as
I'm concerned because they have serious purpose. I am dealing with two immediate cover-ups involving
holders of public/judicial office etc., who are liable to imprisonment for misconduct related offences. I therefore
have only FOI legislation available to me for carrying out investigations which the negligent/criminal public
bodies should have investigated on my behalf in return for the taxes I pay.

I consider the exemption has been wrongly applied and given the evidence provided in respect of the
dishonest dealing with 10 items of post, I can not see how the Commissioner could with credibility disagree.

Yours sincerely

.

01/08/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
To: <




@gmail.com>
Sent: 05 July 2017 16:04
Subject: Decision[Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr

Thank you for your email and further representations.

We do not accept that your assertions are well founded but in the light of your
continuing concerns we will proceed to a formal decision.

Yours sincerely

Roy Wernham

Roy Wernham
Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

From: "


" <




@gmail.com>

To: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Sent: 05 July 2017 16:27
Subject: Re: Decision[Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr Wernham

Can you please confirm that the Commissioner believes 10 items of post, claimed to have been sent by the
Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire to the same address, spanning the period from 19 December
2013 to 22 July 2016 (none of which were delivered), were actually posted?

Yours sincerely

.

01/08/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
To: <




@gmail.com>
Sent: 10 July 2017 11:32
Subject: 10 items of post[Ref. FS50668580]
Dear Mr

Thank you for your email of 5 July in which you ask for confirmation that the
Commissioner believes the 10 items of post to which you refer we actually posted.
You wrote:

Can you please confirm that the Commissioner believes 10 items of post, claimed to have been sent by the
Justices' Clerk for Humber and South Yorkshire to the same address, spanning the period from 19 December
2013 to 22 July 2016 (none of which were delivered), were actually posted?

We have to work to the civil standard of proof of a balance of probabilities; we

must also be fair to all parties. Using that standard, and in the absence of objective
evidence to the contrary, we are minded to accept the evidence of HMCTS that the
10 items were actually posted.

By the same token, and in the absence of contrary objective evidence, we also are
minded to accept the evidence from you that these 10 items were not actually
received by you.

Yours sincerely

Roy Wernham

Roy Wernham
Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

01/08/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "


" <




@gmail.com>

To: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Sent: 11 July 2017 12:55
Attach: Investigations Team 6 April 2017.pdf; HMCTS Complaint handling 19 March 17.pdf
Subject: Re: 10 items of post[Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr Wernham,

My opinion for what it's worth is that the focus should be on determining whether or not I have submitted the
request to solely cause annoyance or if I perceive there to be a serious purpose. The evidence (or lack of) to
support my allegations is of secondary importance. What matters is my belief that dishonesty has been
involved.

Regarding the balance of probabilities, it is to a far greater extent weighted in favour of the letters never being
posted and being produced afterwards. I have checked documents I have sent to you and on 12 January 2017
I copied you in on an email sent to the Council's Monitoring Officer to which was attached a file named "Case
stated application missing documents" which contains a number of relevant correspondence arranged
chronologically spanning the period of the undelivered letters with those letters positioned in context.

On initial inspection it could be understood how one might be satisfied that all the letters in question had been
produced at the appropriate time, i.e., in response to my correspondence concerning the matter(s). However,
if the trouble is taken to do a simple analyses some inconsistencies become obvious.

I have done this and my findings have been recorded in correspondence to the Head of Customer
Investigations (HMCTS) Richard Redgrave, however, I don't believe you were sent copies.

In case it has any relevance I have attached further information containing my findings.

Paragraphs 11 to 25 of the attachment named "HMCTS Complaint handling 19 March 17" records the
anomalies which I mentioned from carrying out a simple analyses. The other attachment, "Investigations
Team 6 April 2017" is a continuation of the correspondence between myself and the Head of Customer
Investigations.

Yours sincerely

.

01/08/2017
4. Unanswered correspondence to obtain final case

11. The first paragraph in Mr Hopgood's response in this matter does not really answer any of the
concerns. There is no obvious relevance to the remarks regarding the Justices’ Clerk’s email
of 6 March 2014 referring to my case as a whole rather than just the Case Stated nor
emphasising that the Draft Case had by then been served and on which I’d made
representations on 19 August 2013. The court was telephoned specifically about why the Final
Case had not been served which according to the Magistrates court rules 1981 (MCR) should
have been by 10 September 2013 (written communications were not being responded to). The
calls were made over a period beginning 3 March 2014, before the Justices’ Clerk’s email, up
until 28 March, long after the undertaking to communicate the position regarding the case
(advising on the next steps) was not acted on.

12. The Justices’ Clerk was first made aware on 10 January 2014 and again on 13 February that
the 19 December 2013 letter, allegedly posted, had not been received. It was also obvious that
the recent claim of its sending was not known about then. The content of the 6 March 2014
email considered in the context of what is set out in the alleged 19 December 2013 and 20
February 2014 letters is as irrational as it gets. Both letters explicitly set out what steps are
required regarding lodging the Final Case should I wish to pursue the appeal, yet the 6 March
2014 email stated the following:

“I am due to be in meetings all day today but I will have written communication with you
either later today or first thing tomorrow setting out the position with your case and
advising you on next steps.”

13. There is no uncertainty about the email being sent on 6 March 2014 which is the only
correspondence sent by the Justices’ Clerk I received (after 16 July 2013 signed for AOS).
Predated letters are produced easily, albeit not always credibly nor with proof of posting,
whereas correspondence sent electronically does not provide that flexibility. Contrast the
email’s content with what appeared both in the alleged 19 December 2013 and 20 February
2014 letters before it, and again in the alleged 1 May 2014 letter afterwards, all containing the
same typo (emphasis added):

“If you wish to pursue your appeal, the case must be lodged with the Administrative Court
Office at the Royal Courts of Justice within 10 days of receiving it from this office, and
within four days of lodging the case, the you must serve on the Respondent a notice of
entry of the appeal together with a copy of the case.”
14. The several emails/letters querying the service of the Final Case and the Justices’ Clerk’s one
email response are the only communications that can be of assistance to establish the events.
If the Final Case had been produced and served on 19 December 2013 and sent again on 20
February 2014 then it would have been imperative to have stated this in the email, more so on
account of the court being pressured for not complying with the MCR.

15. If there was a question of the document not being received, which obviously there was, it
would have been the Justices’ Clerk’s priority (on first being made aware) to ensure that a
record of posting was retained so in the likely event evidence was required it could have been
presented as proof. The object is defeated of sending an important document by recorded
delivery if a record is not kept of that delivery.

Letters not acknowledged

16. The Justices’ Clerk received confirmation from myself on two separate occasions upon the
request that letters were acknowledged. The first was the registered envelope dated 12 July
2013 inside which was the AOS regarding the judicial review claim. An email was sent to
acknowledge receipt on 16 July 2013 (the day the letter was signed for). The second dated 24
July 2013 was the Draft Case which was acknowledged in an email of 30 July 2013.

17. The correspondence next in date order (undelivered letter of 19 December 2013) asked
similarly if I would acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and enclosure. Of course, no
acknowledgement was sent as the letter was never delivered and a copy of it only received on
3 January 2017. If the letter had been sent, it would have been shortly after this that the first
alarm bells should have rung. Another correspondence (undelivered letter of 15 April 2016)
also asked for acknowledgement which was not sent for the same obvious reason.

18. Confirmation is presumably asked for to ensure safe receipt of important documents and if
there is no acknowledgement it must be considered a possibility that the delivery has failed,
especially when the same recipient has previously acknowledged such requests.

Other inconsistencies

19. The Justices' Clerk was aware from a letter copied to the interested parties dated 20 November
2013 of a suspicion I had that the court's undertaking might have been to deliver only the draft
 case. The letter updating the Administrative Court expressed this on account of there being no
delivery of the final signed case which by that time had overrun by approximately two
months.

20. There was no communication indicating whether the undertaking had been to deliver only the
Draft Case or also the Final Case upon representations being made on the draft.
Representations made by myself had been served on 19 August 2013 together with a letter
advising the Court that (in effect) it had up until 10 September 2013 to state and sign the case
in accordance with rule 77 of the MCR.

21. The copy of the undelivered Final Case documents dated 19 December 2013 acknowledges
receipt of my representations made on the Draft Case served on 19 August 2013 which is an
extraordinary 4 month delay. The letter explained that the court, by request of the council,
granted an extension to the time in which it may submit representations on the Draft Case as
the Council stated that it had not received the Draft Case.

22. The council's representations were served on the court and myself on 9 September 2013 but
there is no evidence of when the council sought an extension or when it was granted. In
accordance with rule 78(2) of the MCR the Justices' Clerk was obliged to attach a statement of
the extension and the reasons for it on serving the final case. Though the copy of the letter
dated 19 December 2013 gave the reason, i.e., that 'the Council stated that they had not
received the draft case', an appropriate statement of the extension was not attached.

23. It should be noted that the council became aware that the Draft Case had been unsuccessfully
sent no later than 19 August 2013 when representations on the draft were served by myself on
the interested parties. Unless or until it can be determined the date of service in respect of the
council it may be assumed (in the court's favour) that the date on which the council served
representations and the extension start date were the same and the extended time was equal to
the number of days originally provided under rule 77(2) of the MCR. On this basis, the latest
date by which the court had to state and sign the case would have been 21 October 2013 (42
days from 9 September).

24. However, observing that 9 September 2013 coincides with 21 days after the council became
aware that it had not received the draft, it is more feasible that the extension would have been
granted on 19 August 2013, therefore the date on which the council served representations
 was the latest day on which representations may have been made under rule 77(2) of the
MCR. On this basis, the latest date by which the court had to state and sign the case would
have been 30 September 2013 (21 days from 9 September).

25. The copy of the undelivered Final Case document is dated 19 December 2013, so after
factoring in the extension that had been granted, the case, if it had been sent as alleged, would
have been 80 days past the 30 September date required for service.
 HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Customer Investigations Team
Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France
London
HM Courts & SW1H 9AJ

Tribunals Service Email:

ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Mr

Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN32

6 April 2017 Our ref: 00042/165/1617

Without Prejudice

Dear Mr

Grimsby Magistrate’s Court

Thank you for your letter of 19 March about the way your application for a case stated
was handled by the Grimsby Magistrates’ Court. I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied
with the previous replies you have received. I am replying at the final stage of the
complaints process.

I have reviewed the previous responses from Mrs Watts and Mr Hopgood and having
done so I believe your complaint needs further investigation. After careful consideration
I have decided to uphold your complaint and offer you compensation for the poor level
of service that you have received. My reasons for this are as follows.

I understand that the North East Lincolnshire Council issued a summons against you
for unpaid council tax and the court hearing was set for 2 November 2012. Before the
hearing took place you paid the outstanding sum of £437.52 and also £10 towards the
costs. The court decided that you should pay the council’s remaining costs of £60. On
the 21 November 2012 you applied to the court to state a case so you could appeal the
decision. An acknowledgment was sent to you on 22 November 2012 by the Deputy
Justices’ Clerk, Mr Draper.

You chased for a response on 28 December 2012 but your email to Mr Draper was not
delivered. You then emailed the Justices’ Clerk, Mrs Alison Watts, also on 28
December 2012. You received a response to your emails on 14 January 2013 from Mr
Townell confirming that he would find out what was happening with your application.
On the 24 January 2013 Mrs Watts wrote to you to confirm that the justices required
you to enter into a recognizance of £500 before they stated the case for consideration
of the High Court.

On the 5 February 2013 you wrote to the court to find out why you had been asked to
pay £500. You felt that you were being prevented access to the courts because you
could not afford this sum. The court acknowledged your letter on 6 February and
dfgdda
confirmed the matter would be brought to the attention of Mrs Watts. You chased for a
reply on 26 February and were informed on 27 February that Mrs Watts was looking
into the matter.

I note that on the 23 March 2013 you wrote to the Administrative Court Office (ACO)
telling them that you would like to apply to the High Court for an order that the justices
state the case. You were told by the ACO that you would need to apply for Judicial
Review (JR).

On the 27 March you asked the court for an update and you were informed on the
same day that the matter was ‘receiving attention’. In the absence of a response you
wrote a further letter on 29 April asking for a certificate under section 111(5) of the
MCA1980 to confirm the reasons why the justices have refused to state a case. You
explained that if you did not receive a response within 14 days you would be apply for a
JR. In the absence of a response you began the JR procedure and your application
was issued on 13 June 2013.

The court’s response to your JR application was that you had not been asked to pay
the £500 upfront and that the letter dated 23 January 2013 explained that position.
However, the court agreed, in order to save public money, to prepare a draft case and
serve on the parties within 14 days. On the 24 July 2013 a draft case was dispatched
for the parties’ comments. You replied on 19 August 2013. I note that the council
responded on 9 September 2013.

On the 10 January 2014, and also on 13 February, you wrote to the court to ask why
the final case stated had not been sent out. On the 6 March Mrs Watts said she would
look into the matter and get back to you by the following morning. You then wrote again
on 22 April 2014 asking why you have not had a response. In the absence of a
response you raised a complaint with the Advisory Committee. I do not propose to
repeat the history of this specific complaint, but I have noted that you experienced
difficulties with the process. You escalated the matter to the Judicial Appointments &
Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) and received a final report on 23 May 2016.

On the 25 June 2016 you wrote to my team out of frustration because you were yet to
receive the case stated and this was preventing you to go to the High Court. At this
point you had waited three and half years for the case to be stated. In line with the HM
Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) complaints process my team asked the court to
investigate what had happened.

Mrs Watts wrote to you on the 22 July 2016 and acknowledge that the level of service
provided to you on occasions could have been better. She explained that the case
stated was posted to you on 19 December 2013 and that further copies were sent to
you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014.

On the 26 January 2017 you emailed Ms Collins asking for a review of the complaint. I
believe that you had recently received copies of correspondence from the court file
following a Subject Access Request and had found that a number of letters had not
reached you through the post. Mr Hopgood responded to you on 22 February 2017 at
the review stage of the complaints process.

Page 2
My findings.

It is clear that you had a strong view about the costs that were awarded to the local
council on 2 November 2012. While the amount in contention was £60, it was your right
to apply to the court to state a case. The initial handling of your application was poor
because insufficient arrangements had been made to cover Mr Draper’s work after he
had left the court. I am sorry that you had to wait two months before you received the
court’s letter of 24 January 2013. You had a number of issues with the decision to
impose a recognizance to pay £500 and wrote to the court about this. I understand the
consequence of entering into a recognizance was that if you did not pursue your
appeal in the High Court you would have had to pay £500. If you did pursue your
appeal the £500 would not have to be paid. I cannot comment on a judicial decision but
I do consider the handling of your correspondence on the matter was very poor.

I could not find any substantial response to your letter of 5 February 2013 and I believe
this was the court’s opportunity to clarify and explain the position to you. It must have
been very frustrating for you that you were not given a full reply. I am sorry that the only
way you were able to prompt a response from the court was by issuing a judicial review
application. It was at that stage that the court decided to prepare the draft case without
the need for a recognizance. It is my view that the final case stated document could
have been prepared in a timelier manner and served on the parties before the 19
December 2013.

You have said that you did not receive the court’s letter of 19 December 2013 or the
additional letters sent to you on 20 February 2014 and 1 May 2014. I am not doubting
you did not receive the letters through the post. I am sorry that is the case but I have
not seen any reason to believe they were not posted to you. I have noted the court’s
admission that the final case should have been sent by recorded delivery. The court is
unable to provide any evidence that this method of postage was used. Therefore I hold
the view the letter of 19 December 2013 was not sent by recorded delivery.

It is regrettable that you did not receive 10 documents through the post but, in the
absence of receiving the letters, I do appreciate why you felt you were being ignored. I
therefore understand why you made a complaint about the judiciary. After you received
the final JACO report in 2016 you reverted to the HMCTS complaints process. Again, it
is regrettable that you did not received the court’s response dated 22 July 2016 but I
have not seen any reason to suggest that it was not posted to you in the normal way.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that you have experienced a very poor level of service due to the way
your correspondence had been handled. The court had a number of opportunities to
clarify the position for you and, in the absence of doing so, it caused you a lot of
frustration and inconvenience. While I am satisfied that the letters on file would have
been posted to you, it is my view that an alternative service method of the final case
stated should have been considered after your third request for a copy had been
received.

While I appreciate you were pursuing a complaint about the judiciary between 2014
and 2016, I do have to take into account the fact that you did not pursue the court for a
copy of the final case for over two years. I also appreciate the fact that you could not
pursue an appeal until the case had been stated by the magistrates’ court. However, I

Page 3
believe you could have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties you were
having. In addition, I have not seen any reason why you could not have telephoned the
court to chase the final case stated document.

Overall, I believe an apology alone will not be sufficient in recognition of the poor level
of service that you received. I would therefore like to offer you the sum of £375 in
recognition of the poor handling of your application and subsequent correspondence. I
would also like to offer you a further sum of £375 to apologise for the frustration and
inconvenience that you experienced.

If you would like to accept the total sum of £750 please let me know in writing (by email
is fine) and I will arrange payment to you. If you would prefer a bank transfer please
provide me with your bank details. Please allow 20 working days for the money to
reach you after I have received your acceptance.

If you do not consider that my reply has dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, you can
ask a Member of Parliament to refer your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). By law the Ombudsman can only look at complaints
about UK government departments and agencies if they have been referred by an MP.
Please fill out the form on the Ombudsman’s website www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-
complaint first and then pass it to an MP. Please be aware that there are time limits for
the Ombudsman to look into complaints and they are investigated at the PHSO’s
discretion. You can find your local MP at findyourmp.parliament.uk.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave
Head of Customer Investigations

Page 4
 Page 1 of 4

From: " "< . @gmail.com>

To: "HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)" <ComplaintsCorres&LT@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <melanie.onn.mp@parliament.uk>
Attach: Complaint appeal stage - Mr .pdf
Sent: 26 April 2017 21:34
Subject: Re: Complaint appeal stage - Mr

Dear Mr Redgrave

Re: Grimsby Magistrates' court Complaint - Submitted 25 June 2016

Thank you for your letter of 6 April 2017 which sets out your findings to my concerns. I apologies for the delay
in responding - this has been due to several deadline obligations arising from matters I have become
embroiled in as a result of the issues of this complaint.

I appreciate that there has been a degree of recognition in the fact that the complaint has overall been upheld
and a sum of compensation offered for the poor service and the frustration and inconvenience experienced.
However, I perceive what is described as 'poor level of service' to be far more serious than that and the
inconvenience would more appropriately be termed gross injustice.

I had anticipated that any consolatory payment which might be deemed appropriate would not go a fraction of
the way to compensate for the amount of time and effort that has been necessary to dedicated to this matter.
The inordinate number of hours consumed has extended far beyond that attributable to the difficulties with the
court. Though this element is obviously the most significant, the direct engagement with HMCTS pales in
comparison with all other public bodies that it has been necessary to deal with relating to the issues that
concern this complaint.

If it could be quantified in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if aggregated over the
years for the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the negligence would amount to thousands of
pounds. However, if all the public authorities which it has been necessary to involve were factored in it would
increase the burden tenfold. Though for someone in my financial situation the amount offered is not
insignificant, it only represents around 1 per cent of an amount that would realistically compensate for the
overall injustice. It is therefore only on the basis that I would rather be paid the amount offered than not that I
accept the total sum of £750.

I am not satisfied that the full extent of the injustice has been recognised nor responsibility for it fully accepted
and will therefore be asking my MP to refer my concerns to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. You will no doubt
appreciate that I find the continued denial regarding my assertions about the undelivered items of post not
being sent irrational. In light of my representations and on the balance of probability the letters will not have
been posted (ten letters neither delivered nor returned), I find the view inappropriate that HMCTS has not
seen any reason to believe that the letters were not posted to me. It is not so much the reason that HMCTS
needs to look for to believe that the letters were not posted (though it should be discovered) but whether on
the evidence and probability it is credible that they were not.

The amount in contention only £60

Though it has been acknowledged that applying to the court to state a case was my right, it would be naive of
me not to have wondered if the unnecessary reference to the amount in contention (£60.00) was for the
purposes of implying the matter did not warrant an appeal to the high court. In case this was implied I consider
it necessary to briefly defend the decision with a number of reasons justifying why pursuing the matter was not
frivolous.

Firstly, the council had weighed up the pros and cons about taking me to court (for the same amount) and
therefore could not itself have considered going to these lengths to be frivolous. If the amount was
significant to the council then for an individual in receipt of no income it stands to reason that sum was more
significant to me. The council had been informed that the outstanding debt had been paid and an
additional sum exceeding the cost incurred by the council for instituting the summons. The council is restricted
by law to claim no more than is reasonably incurred (it is an automated process). Extensive representations
had been submitted to justify why the £10 sum would cover the aggregate of the £3 court fee and out of
pocket expense of postage etc. for the summons issue, yet the council chose to pursue the matter in the court
to enable it to enforce an unwarranted additional £60 when it could have considered the matter closed.

Rather than the sum contended being the central matter, the true focus of the appeal was on the council
routinely claiming expenditure unlawfully in respect of many thousands of cases each year and clearly a

02/05/2017
 Page 2 of 4

matter of public importance.

Among reasons why the judiciary should have welcomed the appeal being presented was the fact that the
standard summons charge had been determined from a decision (public consultation) relating to the council's
2012 budget-setting. The decision was taken to front load all the cost of the court case to the cost of merely
issuing a summons, forecasted to raise £0.752 million additional revenue over four years (the summons
increased from £32 to £70). Details of the outcome to the public consultation showed that the majority of
respondents favoured generating income this way than the alternative proposals to introduce a charge for
replacement bins or garden waste collections. The costs appeared to have been manipulated for an unlawful
purpose therefore it was only reasonable to ask a court to adjudicate on the matter. On being advised by the
Magistrates court it was learned that a Liability Order can only be challenged by an appeal to the High Court
by way of either a case stated on a point of law or a judicial review.

It is useful, particularly for billing authorities that seem to get away with routinely picking the pockets of its
'customers' to be able to present to those unhappy being swindled, the only option to "lumping it" being to
challenge their actions in the high court. Councils know that those most likely to be victims will be the easiest
to obstruct access to justice because unless a solicitor is appointed (an unaffordable luxury) the
unrepresented litigant can evidently be ignored.

Not pursuing a copy of the case stated

I consider HMCTS unjustified to imply I should take some responsibility for its failure. A copy of the final case
was not pursued for over two years because I was unaware one had allegedly been sent. This period is
implied to be the time I was pursuing the complaint about the judiciary between 2014 and 2016. The period
incidentally that I did not directly pursue the court for the final case was for just over a year and a half, not for
over two years. It is also of note that the process of the judicial complaint including the Judicial Ombudsman's
involvement reported on page 16 of its 2015-16 Annual Report (re service fell below...) was unacceptable as
was the first stage of the present HMCTS complaint that was referred to the Justices' Clerk to address.

The final time I had contacted the Justices' Clerk (up until pursuing the judicial complaint) was 9 July 2014
when I had written to enquire into whether HMCTS had any arrangements in place to restrict my contact with
the court after receiving no reply to requesting the production of a Certificate of refusal to state a case. The
next time was 25 February 2016 on receiving the Judicial Ombudsman's 23 February 2016 email to which
was attached copies of three of the undelivered letters. One dated 16 September 2014 was a response to the
Judicial complaint in which it stated that a certificate of refusal to state a case was not issued by the Justices
because they did state a case which had been sent to me. I therefore asked in my 25 February email to the
Justices Clerk that the final case was sent (I had never received it) in order that the application to the High
Court may be proceeded with.

I also think that the lengths to which I had already gone and failed to get any cooperation would give me
enough reason to believe that the obstruction was deliberate and would not be assisted however many times I
tried to contact anyone. From August 2013 when the representations upon the draft case were submitted up
until September 2014 (Advisory Committee complaint), the Court was contacted a total nine times in
connection with obtaining the finalised document. All communications were ignored except one (6 March
2014) to which Mrs Watts replied with an undertaking to have written communication setting out the position
with the case and advising of the next steps. This undertaking was never acted on.

It is the opinion of HMCTS that I should have contacted the High Court to explain the difficulties I was
having. This is exactly what I had done initially when my communications were ignored which led to the High
Court advising that the appropriate avenue would be by judicial review. To have done as suggested (again)
would effectively have meant pursuing another judicial review claim for a mandatory order because the
previous claim had been closed on the basis that it had succeeded in the Magistrates' court undertaking to
proceed with the case. There are limits to how far one is expected to go and it should be reasonably
obvious for anyone to see that those limits had long been reached and pursuing the Judicial Complaint was
the most that could have been done under the circumstances to obtain answers.

Financial barrier to progress appeal and ongoing consequences

Even though the final case has been obtained I am still no nearer an outcome. As my 19 March 2017
submission explained, the 100% fee remission I was entitled to due to my financial circumstances was no
longer applicable because the criteria on which entitlement to ‘fee remission’ applied had changed and fees
were payable in full. Due to the unacceptable number of years it has taken to obtain the final case stated there
is now a financial barrier to progress the matter which did not exist when the appeal was embarked upon.
Paragraphs 32 to 37 of the complaint explains in detail but this matter was not addressed and no solution
offered.

02/05/2017
 Page 3 of 4

I am left in a position with the council, even knowing it is in the wrong, unwilling to take steps to remedy the
situation because presumably it considers to be under no obligation unless the high court orders it to. Since
the disputed sum has been outstanding on my Council Tax account, the council has misallocated payment
causing the year's account which was current at the time to be in arrears on 3 separate occasions. A
computer generated letter received in April 2013 threatened summons costs of £70, instalment facility
withdrawal etc. Monies were eventually re-allocated so the account no longer in default and the threat of court
/ recovery action ceased but not until I had involved the Local Government Ombudsman.

The next time it more seriously resulted in a summons being served for non-payment, when again, payments
were up to date. A letter received in October 2014 threatened the usual but because the council failed to
respond to my letter explaining I had paid, further costs were added and a summons served. It was not until
27 days after it was contacted that the council replied simply stating that the payments had been reallocated,
there was no longer need to go to court, the costs had been removed and the summons withdrawn. However,
it required writing repeatedly and reporting the incident to the police via the website “Action Fraud” before it
remedied its mistake.

The most recent allocation error resulted in the council obtaining a liability order in October 2015 with the
addition of summons costs and several hundred pounds bailiff fees which it has refused to remedy because it
considers its actions legitimate (the court endorsed them). The consequences have been horrendous
principally because the council presented perjured evidence to the court to persuade the judge that it was
entitled to allocate payment to the disputed costs (leaving the balance of the year’s account that should have
been reduced in default). The Council had suspended recovery of the sum being appealed in the high court
until the case had been determined, however, it falsely claimed in its signed statement of truth that it believed
the appeal had been withdrawn therefore the disputed costs were no longer suspended. The appeal had
never been withdrawn and it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the council knew it had not been withdrawn
from incriminating evidence accompanying its witness statement.

The council was caught red-handed yet its Corporate Fraud team, police, etc., have allegedly found no
evidence of dishonesty even though the documented proof is conclusive.

It can be seen that during the period HMCTS has taken into account that I did not pursue the court for a copy
of the final case, I had plenty of other injustices to contend with that resulted from the maladministration. Time
consuming and fruitless disputes i.e., formal complaints escalating to the LGO, police, police appeals and
entering into a private prosecution against the police for negligence have all been undertaken as well as
pursuing additional judicial complaints which had arisen because of the judge's complicity (and other
misconduct) surrounding the false statement.

With the number of people this matter must have been considered by it is staggering that it has not at any
point fallen in the hands of someone capable of appreciating the impossibility of the situation who has had the
good sense and the authority to find a way of bypassing the obstacles to have the appeal dealt with. The fact
that is has not is an indication that the person responsible for obstructing the appeal may be someone more
senior than the Justices Clerk. I consider this matter requires far more investigation as I'm unable to settle for
being caused such unquantifiable injustice over the protracted period without finding out the real reason for
the gross failure that prevented the appeal reaching a conclusion.

Yours sincerely

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

From: HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence)
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 2:35 PM
Subject: Complaint appeal stage - Mr

Dear Mr

Mr Redgrave has asked me to email you his response to your complaint. Please see attached. A copy has also
been sent in the post to you.

Yours sincerely

Mr Steve Davies
02/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
To: < . @gmail.com>
Sent: 12 July 2017 11:32
Subject: your further representations [Ref. FS50668580]

Dear Mr

Thank you for your further representations of 11 July 2017 which I have noted.

Thank you too for sight of your correspondence with HMCTS and their letter of 6
April 2017 which I had not seen before.

Yours sincerely

Roy Wernham

Roy Wernham
Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

01/08/2017