The original article in this blog post has been temporarily removed.
The original article covered the misconduct of a Social Worker employed by Wakefield Council, the medical effect the misconduct had on a pensioner under the Social Worker’s care and the efforts made by Wakefield council social services to supress the knowledge of this becoming public information or known to other institutions.
This is because there has been an application made in legal proceedings by the firm representing Wakefield Council.
The application covers removal of any data that may be used in those legal proceedings supplied by Wakefield Council including the statement of said Social Worker.
The firm concerned is Weightman’s of Liverpool, a shabby little firm that has thus far attempted to gain tactical advantage for its client via a series of underhanded methods, this being the latest.
In relation to the article which originally appeared on this page the firm obtained an order from HHJ John Hayes KC in the High Court to supress the content of the article.
Morris Hill appears to have a lengthy history of assisting local authorities to escape the consequences of their own misconduct.
The persons responsible for such questionable suppression of data in the public interest are Morris Hill and Jamin Lennard, respectively pictured here.
Jamin Lennard
The suppression of content covered only matters which have not yet been discussed within legal proceedings. The dispute with the article does not cover the factual aspects of the post, since these are unarguable, but rather that it covers matters which have yet to be heard within proceedings and were drawn from statements in those proceedings.
However the firm sought to effectively redact the entirety of the article and render it meaningless by the removal of data and information contained within it which was not subject to a court order or part of proceedings and which was obtained from other sources. The amount of information that they sought to remove went significantly over and above that allowed for in the court order.
This is clearly to spare the embarrassment of their client the council and prevent further knowledge of clear misconduct in public office from being known more widely. The issues of freedom of speech, public interest and the importance of other persons being armed with knowledge of the misbehaviour of local authorities are not issues that have been considered.
The article will shortly return in its full form at the appropriate time.
You may well wonder why a legal firm representing a local authority that has consistently misconducted itself seeks to suppress public knowledge of that misconduct, particularly that of a named Social Worker. Well that question answers itself!
Consequently because the firm are prepared to argue the matter to the nth degree over wording which does not is not covered by the court order and are seeking to use the Order to suppress data obtained from other sources, such as the Social Workers to attempts to gain copies of Mrs X’s medical records without her permission, it is easier republish the original article on this page at the appropriate time.
This blog entry gives a glimpse into how The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) operates. ICO is charged with supervision of information rights in the UK and acting to assist when things go wrong.
Much anecdotal evidence suggests ICO may act to shield certain favoured organisations.
On 5.7.21 I contacted The Information Commissioner’s Office with a complaint. This stated:
For a civil hearing on 9.6.21 a copy of any criminal record regarding me was requested. CPS supplied erroneous data to the Court. The error was a serious and significant one… This is not only offensive but also a matter to cause exceptional damage within the hearing. Such [the retention and supply of incorrect data] being an exceptionally serious offence.
In 2019 I had been made aware that this incorrect offence was recorded against me and had requested a correction. It appears CPS [The Crown Prosecution Service] did not correct the error, as they admitted only after the hearing.
The incorrect data was supplied to The High Court sitting at Leeds County Court for a hearing on 9.6.21. This caused embarrassment, distress and actual loss.
CPS were informed of the error prior to the hearing. They failed to correct the record prior to the hearing and failed to inform the Court prior to the hearing also.
CPS did not correct the error for the hearing as the transcript of the hearing also shows: the matter of them providing incorrect data to the Court became a significant issue within the proceedings and I was left unable to prove that this record of this offence was wrong. Since the record however came from an official source the Court will have been inclined to believe it.
Accordingly I looked to ICO on this matter to enforce my right to be protected from the incompetence clearly shown by CPS on this matter and the effects that this has had on me.
I sought from ICO first a detailed ruling in relation to this matter that CPS has breached the law. I sought also that CPS should be subject of a fine or other action from ICO in relation to the significance of the error made. Especially when they failed to correct a prior record showing the data to be in error and failed to act to correct the record when informed of the error prior to proceedings.
Finally I required assistance from ICO to correct the records of CPS. CPS have previously stated in 2019 that the error has been corrected only for it to be repeated again in June 2021: this shows that they cannot be trusted to hold correct data or act properly in line with their legal obligations. Spoiler alert: neither can ICO!
One thing in their credit it that CPS admitted to ICO the error in a letter sent to me. However account details a series of errors that should not have been made had CPS been compliant with and following the law.
CPS Legal Services claimed to ICO that the record was corrected with the Court. What they failed to state was that the record was only corrected a substantial time after the hearing had concluded. A data request to the Court showed this and caught CPS out. It might be thought that ICO would look more severely on this matter for this. They failed to even properly consider all of the data put in front of them.
This blog entry therefore details how and why ICO are unwilling or unable to hold CPS to account even in a situation in which there has been a clear and catastrophic data mishandling.
What Went Wrong
CPS failed to correct data held on me in error in 2019. ICO were aware of this matter at the time. Art. 16 of GDPR relates to the right to rectification. Data was held on me in error by CPS showing a supposed offence had been committed when in fact it had not. The nature of this offence was exceptionally serious and so the onus was on CPS to create and maintain correct records even more strongly than normal due to the exceptional damage such incorrect data could create if released to a third party. CPS previously claimed to have corrected the record in January 2019 but it subsequently emerged that this was not done, breaching my relevant rights (Article 16) and CPS’ legal obligations in the process.
In a matter at The High Court sitting at Leeds in June 2021 however a copy of this incorrect data on me was produced. I contacted CPS prior to the hearing to inform that an urgent correction was required. They failed to make this correction prior to the hearing. This amounts to an exceptionally serious data error and is the cause of loss and embarrassment.
On 5.7.21 I wrote to ICO and made the following complaint regarding CPS:
I refer also to the email to CPS in respect of their illegal retention of incorrect data on me and their sharing of this to third parties in June 2021.
A series of questions are asked of CPS in the email from me below of 3.8.21. I also request additional data from them. I exercise my Article 16 GDPR rights also. CPS’s response to this of 11.8.21 is to ignore all these matters and refuse further correspondence. I consider this to be the criminal office of attempting to conceal, destroy or hide data from disclosure.
The consequences of CPS getting an individual’s data wrong are serious, significant and occur more often than expected.
On 23.12.21, some five months after alerting ICO of this matter they wrote back to me to request further information. The Case Officer for ICO was Ian Sangan.
By the end of January 2022 there had been no movement in the complaint made to ICO and so I chased the matter up. This produced a response one day later which stated:
We have considered the information available in this case, and we are of the view that CPS have presently complied with their obligations under data protection law. We will now outline the reasons why we believe this to be the case.
We can see that the last meaningful correspondence received from the CPS was July 2021. Our view is that the CPS addressed the issues surrounding the erroneous data still held on record, and advised this has been rectified and removed. The CPS have also advised that the relevant court appear to have been notified of the rectification, and were made aware of the lack of reliability of this data. The CPS have clarified to you that this was rectified prior to the hearing itself.
We can see that the organisation historically received a rectification request in 2018, and that some of the erroneous data remained on your record. Ultimately this is not something that the ICO can reasonably ignore. As such, we have today contacted the organisation and provided them with some best practice advice going forward.
In other words for a matter of a major data error with that data released to a third party, and data which the Data Controller claimed had been corrected in 2019 ICO chose to take no action bar some advice to CPS. It is difficult to imagine a more serious breach of GDPR and the obligation to retain correct data on a person than the failure to correct information pointed out to be in error in 2018 and yet retained until 2021, then supplied to a civil court in proceedings. This is what has happened here. That this matter is not treated with the seriousness it so clearly merits forms the initial issue in a complaint of poor service to ICO.
It is of course clear that the data provided by the Court showed that CPS only corrected the record with the Court AFTER the hearing had taken place, and this data was provided to CPS which makes their comment that The CPS have also advised that the relevant court appear to have been notified of the rectification, and were made aware of the lack of reliability of this data even more puzzling.
I appealed the decision of ICO on that basis and also that:
The ICO findings admit that you are aware that data was not corrected in 2018 and CPS admit this also. ICO has not concluded that CPS breached GDPR in the retention and supply of data in error. This is the minimum that can be expected in this matter in respect of an adjudication from CPS’ professional regulator for data issues. The original issue is the creation and retention of incorrect data in 2017 – 2018 which ICO ruled on in 2018. The seriousness of the matter is increased by the failure to correct under Article 16 in 2018 following the ICO ruling then.
ICO in effect failed to assess if my Article 16 rights were breached by failure to correct the record acknowledged by CPS to be held in error in 2019.
ICO’s response was to refer the matter to a reviewing officer. The response was:
In this case the CPS acknowledge their mistake in their letter of 02 July 2021 when they stated that they had retained a reference to a conviction… which was incorrect. In their letter of 02 August 2021 they stated; ‘This file has now been rectified and the information removed as soon as the error was noted’.
No interest in the significance of such an error or the consequences of it. The creation and retention of incorrect data is ignored by ICO as is the continued retention of it past 2019 despite CPS being aware of the error from that point. In effect ICO fail to reach the obvious conclusion suggested by the data supplied to them that CPS failed in their key duties and then attempted to cover the error up by lying that the record had been corrected with the suggestion this was done in time for the hearing.
It is my view that historically the CPS retained incorrect personal data about you which they went on to share with Leeds County Court and at that time it appears that this would have infringed data protection legislation. However when Ian Sangan assessed your case he was doing so based upon the knowledge that the CPS had rectified the inaccurate information in 2018. On this basis he reached his view in January 2022 that the CPS were complying with data protection legislation. With regards to the erroneous data that was held on your record prior to 2018; the actions of the CPS in sharing inaccurate information with Leeds County Court appear not to have been compliant with data protection law, at that time.
Clearly CPS failed to correct the data in 2018 / 2019! Apart from the judgment that inaccurate data was shared with the Court no action was taken by ICO. Truly a toothless watchdog!
ICO’s John Turner wrote to me on 16.2.22 to state: If you would like to complain about the service you have received from us I would remind you that you may be able to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via your MP.
He of course failed to mention that the matter could be put to the First Tier Tribunal who deal with matters related to information rights issues and complaints about ICO handling of matters. Possibly this was deliberate to avoid such clear evasions of responsibility by ICO being adjudicated against.
Evidence of an inability or unwillingness on the part of ICO to properly hold organisations to account is growing.
On 12.8.22 I wrote to CPS again to state:
In your response of 11.8.21 you fail to take action in respect of the request at c) to show that the records have been corrected. This is a second breach of my Article 16 rights. I have strong grounds to believe that you continue to retain wrong data on me with the potential to cause significant damage if this is released to third parties.
I believe CPS continue to hold incorrect data and that ICO has failed to take action to assist
Following all this two data access requests made of CPS on 16.2.22 and 2.3.22.
Neither of these requests has received a response or acknowledgment from CPS who are again in breach of the law. The time period given under law has now lapsed and the Data Controller has now broken the law by failure to respond. The matter was referred to ICO.
You will likely not be surprised to hear that the response came from ICO’s master of deflection John Turner who stated: I can concur that there has been no communication between ICO and CPS since 28 January 2022. The only communications on the case since that date have been between the ICO and you.
Following your request for a case review this was conducted on 14 February 2022 and you were sent a copy. There was no purpose to involve the CPS in the review and they were not contacted.
I re-iterate your case is now closed and the ICO will not be taking further action
…in other words the issue raised of two further breaches of information rights law by CPS has been cuffed off and ignored by ICO.
Conclusions
A significant series of breaches of the law have been committed by CPS and yet ICO’s investigation into these has been weak, evasive and failed to consider key evidence which shows that CPS sought to mislead ICO.
A more recent data access request to CPS has again breached the law by their failure to reply or disclose the data. Again in this matter the response of ICO is exceptionally weak and evasive. They are taking exceptional steps to avoid action to enforce the law.
ICO appears to have a “special relationship” with certain other organisations. For example it is exceptionally unlikely that they will hold such as NHS Digital to account for even very significant errors with patient records. It appears that they hold the same relationship with CPS and there must be some form of agreement for ICO not to take regulatory action equivalent to the errors these organisations commit. Instead ICO performs a series of twists and turns to avoid assessment of relevant data showing significant misconduct has taken place.
This has the effect of weakening trust in ICO’s ability to hold organisations which misconduct their data handling responsibilities to account and will eventually result in ICO being closed down as unfit for purpose. Unless of course the purpose is to assist state-run bodies in evading accountability.
I have been contacted by the carer of a disabled lady who has detailed a level of misconduct from such as The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), HMCTS, Judicial Conduct Investigations Office & others that makes for shocking reading.
The lady concerned has learning disabilities and for the purpose of this blog entry and to preserve her anonymity we’ll call her Liz. She required ICO to modify their communications with her in order to assist her disabilities. ICO failed to do this, which if course made communication with them very much more difficult, and so she launched a Judicial Review. This brought her into contact with the civil court system where arguably she suffered worse discrimination than originally from ICO.
The Equality Act 2010 and the United Nations Convention on disability rights are supposed to help to enforce, protect and promote the rights of disabled people to access public services and promote equality of access to such.
However as is so often the case in modern Britain the aim falls far short of the reality. As I’ve said Liz’s issues began when The Information Commissioner’s Office failed to communicate with her in a format she could read and understand; she has limited reading and comprehension skills.
Things frequently go from bad to worse when an organisation fails to make adaptations to assist the disabled. This is true of ICO but the same issues were experienced in Liz’s dealings with The Ministry of Justice.
I should add at this point that all of the organisations mentioned in this blog entry will also have guidelines in respect of how to treat everyone equally. They have all fallen far short of this leading to mistreatment and injustice.
An email to me from this lady’s carer shows that further injustice happens from HMCTS…
“When she has attempted to request accessibility from HMCTS, regarding Judicial Reviews against The Ombudsman’s refusing to send her written correspondence, refusal to contact her by phone and when she phones their services to request accessibility, complaints responses and S.A.R’s.”
When Liz called HMCTS she was apparently verbally abused by their staff over the phone. Liz has communication difficulties and it is easy for someone to misinterpret these in a phone call. There are recordings of such calls to Manchester Civil Justice Centre.
When Liz asks for responses to her complaints due to her communication difficulties staff fail to respond appropriately or make proper allowances for her disabilities. This is of course the nub of her original complaint to the Courts in the first place! She has also been supplied the personal data of another HMCTS service user, although this is not unusual given that organisation’s haphazard approach to data protection & privacy.
Most damming of all is the response of Customer Investigations at the MoJ’s head office.
This is the final port of call to get a complaint response outside of referring a complaint against HMCTS to civil action. There are also apparently call recordings retained where Richard Redgrave, the head of Customer Investigations starts laughing and finds it funny that his original land line is inactive and been inactive for the 18 months this lady has attempted to phone him on it. There has been a similar inappropriate responses from The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
The courts have failed to provide the lady with any adaptation and assistance with access to their services with the seeming result that her civil claim failed and there are presently costs against her. Any correspondence from the Court is problematic as this lady cannot read. Again a required adaptation has not been made. Rather more cruelly a Civil Restraint Order was made against her and this of course results in further disadvantage.
I have a list of several named Court staff who have apparently treated this lady appallingly on the account given by her carer.
The adaptations that are needed for her to be able to deal with the Court effectively and understand the process are not extensive but are clear and evident. The level of learning difficulties experienced means that the Court has a higher level of duty of care towards someone who has such restrictions in their everyday life. Indeed there is a simple moral duty here also.
I don’t know why the Courts have failed Liz so badly.
I suspect that it would be more time-consuming and awkward to make the adaptations she needs and that because of speech issues phone calls from her would be very difficult to understand. This requires time and patience. It is not beyond the ability of any organisation however! It is equally not beyond the ability of MoJ to ensure that all service users are treated equally and fairly.
What looks like deliberate cruelty from several members of HMCTS staff takes considerably more explaining though.
That they have not treated Liz kindly, made appropriate adaptations to accommodate her disabilities and even at times shown outright cruelty is an indication of how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.
Hard to think of two more poorly run institution than HMCTS and it’s parent organisation The Ministry of Justice.
This is a very simple post detailing a simple but significant error. So no lengthy explanation as to what’s happened on this occasion!
HMCTS shared my personal financial details with a third party.
That’s it. That’s basically all that can be said in the post.
But wait!
Stop and think for a few moments and we can see this is matter is actually considerably more significant and serious than it first looks.
The letter from The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) finding against HMCTS can be seen below.
But the operative paragraph from it is simple and plain:
The nub of the issue.
Why should this matter?
Personal data in the care of such as HMCTS and MoJ has the potential to cause significant damage if released inappropriately. Release to a third party with no requirement for or rights to such data can and does cause significant issues.
The simple fact is that the incompetence of County Court staff knows no bounds.
Indeed the vindictiveness of their management towards anyone who has received appalling service from HMCTS also knows no bounds. In this matter an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon to be paid fourteen days from the agreement. Some three months after this agreement I was still awaiting payout.
HMCTS and MoJ are simply two organisations which have ceased to function in any meaningful way and the amount of time spent on damage limitation, denying errors have occurred and attempting to maintain an image of professionalism would be better spent actually running courts efficiently in the first instance.
There’s few more enjoyable things in life than catching out a liar.
Senior CPS official and CPS Civil Legal caught out lying to the court and the public.
And with such as The Crown Prosecution Service you won’t have to wait long to do this. In the same way as Boris Johnson is capable of three lies before breakfast the CPS loves to try to mislead to cover up the incompetent and vindictive behaviour of its staff.
It’s all about maintaining a sense of professional reputation of course. This is the aim above all else. It comes below proving a professional, effective and efficient service and it leads CPS to try to bend the truth when they’ve been caught out. As happens here.
The joy of this is that they’ve been caught out twice over basically the same thing.
Here’s how this took place.
In a case in which I was involved at The High Court sitting at Leeds the CPS provided data for the Court and a copy was sent to me. The data supplied was factually inaccurate and highly damaging. CPS knew that the data was factually wrong but went ahead anyway on the basis that it would provide them with a tactical advantage in proceedings.
The data was supplied by a Tracy Wareham of CPS Yorkshire and Humberside. Oddly the wife of Gerry Wareham, the head of that division. If her relationship status has anything to do with her continued employment or not given the things she gets up to I couldn’t say.
Wareham supplied a copy of this data to me in advance of the hearing & was warned some weeks prior that the data was factually wrong, damaging, libellous and in need of urgent correction. She failed to make any effort to correct this in advance of the hearing or to research why the data was wrong in response to my emails.
Her actions amount to a breach of GDPR and The Data Protection Act.
The wrong data supplied was sufficiently damaging and serious to cause significant loss to me. The lie put before the Court was of epic proportions.
Nor was this a consequence-free lie. CPS misled the Court in order to gain tactical material advantage.
CPS Civil Legal dept. created an arguably bigger mistake when they tried to cover this up a few weeks later. In an email to me they claimed that the error was corrected pre-hearing and that this limited the damage caused.
This is of course another lie!
Copies of the emails between Wareham and the Court were supplied to me by Leeds Combined Court and show that no such efforts to correct the data in time were made.
Therefore CPS Civil Legal Services have lied to try to cover up the actions of a senior employee who breached GDPR and The Data Protection Act to try to gain material advantage within a civil hearing by misleading the Court.
Seen below is the email to CPS Civil Legal Dept. exposing their lie. Slight edits made to some lines of text to remove personal details.
Don’t assume that The Crown Prosecution Service is out to tell the truth, be open or is even competent enough to get the basics right. If the opportunity’s there to gain advantage in any situation staff will behave mendaciously and allow their internal departments to try cover up for their behaviour. In this instance both the original person and the department have been significantly caught out. The court has been invited to take action in relation to the supply of a misleading statement in proceedings and The Information Commissioner’s Office has been informed.
The link to an excellent article from Byline Times regarding exorbitant and manipulative legal loans which catch people at their most emotionally vulnerable and go on to exploit them financially.
The article contains the following, amidst criticism of a company called RafeSetter:
In a recent remote court hearing, RateSetter’s chief commerical officer Peter Behrens acknowledged that Sophia being more than £600,000 in debt may be an example of “mismanaged litigation”. Asked what action the company had taken to ensure Sophia was not vulnerable, Behrens said that the lender had done “enough to make ourselves comfortable”.
Mr Judge Raeside, presiding over this hearing, ruled as “fair” her debt from two high interest divorce loans. But Sophia said: “I just know that a lot of people will be coming out of lockdown and divorcing. I don’t want this to happen to anybody else.”
The real story here is that RateSetter’s Peter Behrens is the son of former District Judge John Behrens, now retired. Behrens senior and Judge Raeside were close colleagues at the bar.
How odd then that Judge Raeside did not recuse himself from dealing with a case involving his old friend’s son and found in the favour of the company at which Peter Behrens is chief commercial officer!
Would be curious to know how many other claims involving RateSetter have come before Judge Raeside and what the result of those were.
Was going to write a length diatribe on how badly served we are by Civil Appeals Office at The Royal Courts of Justice but a short explanation, a couple of screenshots and a reproduced email do the job just as well.
This is a blog entry about how a civil appeal matter has received suboptimal service by HMCTS staff, how it’s taken some five months to identify claimed issues with documents supposedly not being sent, but in fact these documents were supplied. How is this related to the shady post of Dismissal List Manager which HMCTS dislike revealing the details of?
To start with here are the screenshots. I’ve been waiting for a response from Civil Appeals Office on this matter since November 2020, their last communication to me prior to this taking some two months to be sent.
Joseph Goswell states his position is in the Case Management Section at Civil Appeals office. He writes:
What is stated to be wrong with the application… Rather a tight time limit for a letter sent to an Applicant on 11.2.21!
In actual fact none of the stated errors with the application exist. All the documents required in the matter were supplied in September 2020. See the reproduced email below.
One thing Joseph Goswell doesn’t tend to advertise is his other job at HMCTS – Dismissal List Manager. This is certainly not the post he mentions in the above letter.
It is noted that HMCTS are very shifty and refuse to answer reasonable data access requests for what a Dismissal List Manager actually does. For more on this bizarre refusal to address a perfectly legitimate question see the link below:
Ludicrously it is claimed no data exists on the role and the responses given to the data access request above are so vague as to be meaningless. In a position paid for out of the public purse why such coyness unless there’s a vested interest in keeping the data secret.
However we can theorise that this role may be someone within HMCTS whose purpose is to frustrate claims at an administrative level for the purpose of enabling them to be dismissed. This seems to tally with the letter content written above in which non-existent issues are identified with a bundle. Of course if HMCTS would like to explain what this role actually is then I’d be happy to include the data here.
My email in response to the letter from Civil Appeals Office states:
I refer to your email below.
I note the delay in response to any issue arising out of this matter and that there has been no communication from your office since November last year. I note that the email prior to that took some two months to receive a response.
The core bundle was filed and served on 2.9.20. Since that point CA have not identified any issue with the bundle which would make it non-compliant.
You state that there is no index. A copy of the index was supplied (index.doc). This shows the reference number for each of the following documents which corresponds to the number starting each document. As was a copy of the sealed order being appealed against (4). The Judicial Review claim form is at (12) and the grounds for JR both follow on from this. In other words all of the grounds you give for the bundle being in error are in fact present and correct and have been with your office since September 2020.
I note further that there has been no communication from CA since September 2020 in relation to the bundle supplied. We are now some five months gone from September 2020. Perhaps you could explain why this is so if there are thought to be errors? For your convenience I have attached a copy of all correspondence so far with CA office.
To go from September 2020 to February 2021 without identifying errors in a bundle and reverting to the Claimant five months later and only at the point at which the Claimant chases the matter up represents an unacceptable service level failure for which I now make a formal complaint to The Court Manager. The errors you state exist with the bundle are not present, as I have shown.
It is further poor service that the attached letter of 11.2.21 states you require these errors correcting by 18.2.21 when you have been sat on these issues for so long. However as stated above each of the documents you claim not to be present is in fact present within the bundle.
A further copy of the bundle is attached to this email.
Please inform me of the progress of this matter, and the progress of the complaint alongside the name of the Court Manager to whom the matter has been referred.
Email of 12.2.21 ends.
So there are the following issues arising here:
Let’s assume there WERE errors in the bundle supplied to The Court of Appeal… why does it take five months for these to be identified?
More to the point why wait until an Applicant emails the court five months later before informing of these?
..and then give a total of seven days in a pandemic (five if we discount the weekend) for these to be corrected when these matters have been left to lay on file for five months now?
Admin staff can see that all of the documents they claim were not supplied were in fact attached with the original bundle. So why do they claim they were not?
Why has there been no communication on this claim for some three months?
Why is there seemingly no data on the post of Dismissal List Manager which can be made public?
Why does Joseph Goswell not use his correct title in the letter to me of 11.2.21?
Suspect the answer to the above questions can be found in the shady and little-stated other position of Joseph Goswell as “Dismissal List Manager”!
Is the handling of this matter standard HMCTS incompetence or is the role of Dismissal List Manager a shadier one than we can imagine and one in which civil claims are subject to interdiction and mishandling to frustrate them?
As always anyone or any organisation cited in this blog post has a right to corrections which I will be happy to make on receipt of relevant evidence.
UPDATE TO THE ABOVE: 19.9.21.
I have today been contacted by email by another person who has had a very similar experience with the same people in the same department as I have.
The experience relayed by this person is interesting. Goswell’s position as “Dismissal List Manager” suggests a specific purpose: does HMCTS have a policy of purposefully frustrating and delaying certain types of claim which might prove embarrassing or politically sensitive to the organisation? More data needed but at least three persons to my knowledge have had experiences which suggest so.
Has someone ever asked you “Does my bum look big in this?”. Did you feel inclined to answer honestly or fib a little to offer some comfort and solace while still being truthful?
The simple fact is that lots of people lie on an almost daily basis. The majority of these are “white lies” which are popularly thought to do no harm, but despite this have a habit of coming back and affecting us in all sorts of ways.
However we used to expect more from people in public positions. The popular myth of the lying politician has of course been around for generations. But often this was more a matter of an MP having been caught out when circumstances rapidly change, or they were simply poor communicators, as opposed to them directly seeking to deceive. Once being caught out as a liar would end a political career either via resignation or sacking. Not any more.
I have dealt with public bodies for the best part of thirty years now and I have detected a drop in standards from state-run organisations which roughly parallels the drop in standards in public life generally.
Sorry to ruin your day by reminding you of these mendacious b******* (pt. 1)
Here’s my theory.
When Tony Blair’s New Labour came to power in 1997 and Blair walked into Downing Street for the first time there appeared to be – to the casual observer – a public demonstration of joy as people lined Downing Street cheering and waving flags. Hooray for the new dawn for Britain!
Except that this wasn’t the case. Those people were all Labour Party activists and not members of the public. But we were supposed to think these were happy Londoners expressing gratitude. Thus the New Labour Goverment of 1997 – 2010 started its term in office with a cynical little deception.
And so it continued. The rise of political spin and outright deception marred any beneficial policies New Labour brought. The 1997 cohort of MP’s still present in opposition continue to practice the same spin and evasion when caught out not doing their jobs that they’ve practiced for years. For more details of the long term effects of this spin and deception ask the average Iraqi citizen.
Some time past mistakes made by organisations such as HMCTS in handling claims were few and far between. Staff were trained, diligent and in a job more or less for life. When a mistake was made an apology was issued and a correction made quickly. Thus mistakes were learning experiences which made staff better employees and future errors less likely. However from 1997 onwards I remember I detected there was a shift: mistakes became something to be covered up like guilty family secrets. Court Managers became adept at avoiding addressing the key aspects of a complaint (“we have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”) in order to avoid blame.
This is entirely parallel to the New Labour age of spin and public relations managment style Government. Anyone remember “A good day to bury bad news”? That one was a big hit back in 2001.
Arguably in the last few years the efforts made to avoid admitting clear errors have mutated into something far more corrosive. Such as Court Managers and Area Directors now deny – in the face of clear documentary evidence – that an error in a claim has occured at all.
The rise of political lying has been very well documented in the last few years and started in ernest with Tory Chancellor George Osborne and Michael Gove who clearly sought to decieve and deployed mendacity as a deliberate political weapon. It seems we now have a Government who are happy to issue untruths on a daily basis secure in the knowledge that the world moves on so fast that by the time their comments have been fact-checked and the truth known that the public will largely have swallowed the lie.
So it is now with public bodies. In many cases the organisation – and I speak of such as MoJ and HMCTS etc. – as I have the majority experience of these two – are so chaotically run that more and more daily errors occur and it is impossible to catch all of these and correct them. For example case files are returned to storage incomplete and disordered as staff run around a a blind panic with no clear idea what they are tasked with.
Sorry to ruin your day by reminding you of these mendacious b******* (pt. 2)
The end result of all this is clear. Any trust remaining in public institutions vanishes. No learning from an error occurs and so it is repeated.
Management cannot address every error as it occurs and so they outright deny such a problem has happened, even when it is clear the whole system is close to collapse. The rise of political lying gives them an example to follow and once again sets the tone for how those employed by the state act. It’s Nelson putting the telescope to his eyepatch and saying “I see no ships”.
This post details the extent to which HMCTS will seek to lie and mislead in order to avoid admitting a clear service level error made by court staff, particularly when such an error is serious enough to amount to a breach of a person’s right of access to justice or human rights.
Below is a copy of an email sent earlier today to Customer Investigations at HMCTS. They are the final stage of appeal in the event that court staff make serious errors in the handling of civil claims.
It follows two separate instances of the Court Manager at Leeds Combined Court, Joanne Town, seeking to deliberately mislead in her replies to a complaint. The original complaint was that court staff failed to notify me of a hearing taking place into two claims – they only informed me of a third taking place on the same date in November.
Joanne Town states that these two claims were not heard on the relevant date. All available evidence including an Order from the hearing proves her wrong but she maintains her position twice over.
This behaviour and the original error of the court failing to inform me of dates for two claims to be heard represents sufficiently shocking behaviour that I share the email I have sent to Customer Investigations in its entirety below.
The email begins…
I refer to the issue below as a formal complaint to Customer Investigations.
On 11.11.20 a hearing took place at Leeds Combined Court in [REDACTED]. I was unable to attend this hearing. Also in the same hearing two other claims were heard. These being [REDACTED] & [REDACTED]. I was not notified that these claims were to be heard on that date at the same time as [REDACTED]. A formal complaint was therefore made to Leeds Combined Court. It is a fundamental aspect of access to justice that a Claimant should be able to attend hearings in relation to claims he has brought. Indeed CPR enshrines such rights. Article 6 of The Human Rights Act states the right to be a fair and public trial or hearing at which I am allowed representation if a public authority is making a decision that has a impact upon my civil rights or obligations. The failure to notify in respect of two claims in which I was Claimant taking place on 11.11.20 thus activates my Article 6 rights. By failure to inform of hearings taking place on 11.11.20 HMCTS has breached my Article 6 rights.
Firstly as can be seen from the email below no communication was received as sent on 7.12.20 by Leeds Combined Court. A copy of a letter dated 7.12.20 has been sent to me by email today in relation to my query regarding a level two response.
The onus of the complaint to Customer Investigations is as follows:
The response provided on 23.11.20 and that dated 7.12.20 both state:
The court did not receive any applications or fees on [REDACTED] & [REDACTED] to set aside, vary or discharge the order of Mr. Justice Lavender dated 27th February 2020 and as such these cases were not listed on the 11th November 2020 these files were not forwarded to the Judge
Further that the position as outlined above is the same argument outlined by the Court in its defence in the 23.11.20 email. There has therefore been no review of the appeal to the first stage complaint response. It would additionally appear that no further investigations into the matter have taken place by Leeds. A simple check of the Order of 11.11.20 would have shown Joanne Town that the statements she has made are wholly factually wrong.
I attach further a copy of an Order made on 11.11.20 in the matters of [REDACTED], [REDACTED] & [REDACTED]. This clearly shows that the matters of G00LS437 & [REDACTED] WERE heard on 11.11.20. I attach also a Notice of Hearing in respect of the 11.11.20 which is the only Notice of Hearing received in relation to any proceedings on this date. I was therefore not informed of the hearing of two other claims on 11.11.20.
As a consequence of this both the email seen in the attached Word document from Joanne Town of November and the PDF of 7.12.20 also attached have deliberately and purposefully set out to misrepresent the facts, mislead and are a clear breach of the duty of care of the Court Manager to act with good faith in relation to service users. When you have a Court Manager who is prepared to mislead in such a way but is so easily caught out I would suggest that it’s pretty much the beginning of the end for HMCTS as an organisation. If you are incapable of honesty and integrity in your dealings with the public then any confidence in the organisation will vanish. The errors seen in the original complaint are compounded by the mendacity of the Court.
I have additionally noted that Joanne Town has acted to respond to both the first and second stage of the complaints and as such there has been no actual second-stage review of the issues raised: the PDF of 7.12.20 simply repeats the response put in the original of 23.11.20.
Consequently I appeal the second stage response on the basis that both that and the first stage response are wholly mendacious and fail to accept that a serious service level failure amounting to a breach of my Article 6 rights has occurred. The situation is no different to that of [REDACTED] in which the same Court Manager was aware that no action was taken in a claim for over a year but failed to respond to complaints in respect of that service level failure.
As a consequence of the error by court staff I have had to make an application in respect of [REDACTED] & [REDACTED] which has also cost me money.
In respect of this matter I seek a financial settlement appropriate to the breach of my rights by Leeds Combined Court in failing to notify of the hearings into [REDACTED] & [REDACTED] and the mendacious response of Court Manager Joanne Town. I have also lost time and amenity chasing this matter and have been vexed and harassed by the behaviour of the Court in respect of the original failure and the mendacious responses provided. I seek compensation in relation to these matters also.
The behaviour of the Court Manager is sufficiently shocking that I believe others should be aware of this and as such the content of communications in this matter thus far – including this email – will be published online.
This blog is in danger of becoming a post largely carping on about service level failures by court staff at HMCTS.
Having said that the errors they make are sufficiently numerous and serious in consequence that they’re like busses: there’s always another one along in a minute. This makes it very easy to produce material for this blog. Although I’m likely to get bored of telling you about all of these errors long before HMCTS stop making them.
Doncaster: the County Court here fails to serve the people of the city well.
The kind of service level failures court staff specialise in would – in any normal workplace – result in disciplinary proceedings. But HMCTS is presently sufficiently desperate to retain any form of staff to keep at least a semblance of function in civil courts that even the most spectacularly gaff-prone employees are retained. Better the devil you know than someone even more slackly incompetent.
The end result of this for court users is of course loss of time, expense and waste of effort.
And so it has been today in relation to a claim at Doncaster County Court, (already noted for more than its fair share of errors in handling this particular claim) at which yet another service level failure has take place.
In several occasions in the past both parties have been all set for trial only for the trial to be cancelled when all are in attendance. Grounds: over-running of a prior matter, file in poor condition etc. On one occasion the file was even lost!
There’s always an excuse for appalling service but the basic grounds ultimately come down to two things: an inability on the part of court staff to administrate claims properly and the failure of District Judges to deploy appropriate oversight of a case or to get a grip on case management issues.
An application in this claim was made in April 2020. Estimated time to hearing was 12 weeks, which of course came and went without any Notice of Hearing.
Two other hearings In the same claim took place in October and November at which the application could have been scheduled to be heard. Needless to say it wasn’t even though the District Judge made clear she was aware of its existence.
This is a critical fact: that staff failed to schedule the application in a way that would have dealt with it reasonably at an appropriate time within the claim, saving the parties time and effort. Having acknowledged receipt of the application they simply forgot all about it
…until the point I sent them a timely reminder in relation to the application. This brought a further hearing date. Which again drags all the parties over to Doncaster for what ultimately ends up as a futile exercise.
When the matter of the application could have been heard within other hearings in the same claim but wasn’t because court staff forgot about it we have clear evidence that the civil court system has collapsed and cannot now administrate in even the most basic respects.
How do many legal professionals react to their cases being so poorly run? Often by keeping their heads down and accepting the situation. To speak out in public or in the court itself would perhaps cause damage to careers and lead the judiciary to take against them on future appearances. And so nothing in the civil system improves.
HMCTS service standards are… well not very good at all really!
Legal Babble 