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.
Anyone who’s been unfortunate enough to have to deal with HMCTS County Court staff will rue the day they ever did.
Customer services for HMCTS reply robustly to any complaint made!
Lazy, incompetent and incapable of even basic administration of claims. Their inability to do the job with promptness and accuracy is matched only by their wheedling and evasions when caught out.
Most of these people of course would not last five minutes in a commercial operation. But there’s no place else you can go to for civil court services.
The third rate service provided to court users therefore comes with a “like it or lump it” aspect.
So how long do you think a simple application in existing civil proceedings might take to be dealt with? Three weeks? Two months tops?
Try two years and three months!
Here’s how this came about…
An application was made in an existing claim to Sheffield County Court in May 2019.
Here is the proof of posting for this.
Note the date: 10.5.21
And here is the letter from Sheffield which states that this application has been received.
Again note the date. Also the claim number! Edited to remove my address.
And finally see the date on the Court Order which has resulted from this application…
All told this simple application has taken a period of two years three months to be actioned by HMCTS.
So what have they been doing in that time? Well the pandemic isn’t really an excuse as they had ten months pre-pandemic to sort the application. Then of course we’ve not been in lockdown for more than four months of the last year. So the pandemic isn’t an excuse.
I suspect as with most civil cases the file has been kept in poor condition with bits missing and documents lost. Again this comes down to the competence of civil court staff to do the basics of their job. A knuckle-dragging approach to fixing problems also doesn’t help.
They are – well it rhymes with mooseless pluckers – as there can be no possible excuse for a matter being left some two years three months before being actioned.
But of course anyone who’s dealt with County Court staff in the last twenty or so years knows what a set of mooseless pluckers they are.
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.
Private Investigator Daniel Morgan was murdered in South London in 1987. His killer has never been found.
Morgan’s employer Southern Investigations went on after his death to provide stories for the Murdoch press, often obtained illegally.
The murder however set in chain a series of investigations which have revealed links between police, the Murdoch controlled newspaper company News International and organised criminal groups. Is is widely thought that Morgan was on the verge of revealing links between corrupt police officers and organised criminals. This is certainly the belief of the Morgan family.
The Metropolitan Police carried out an initial sub-optimal investigation with basic elements of police work left undone. This happened on more than one occasion as successive investigations were botched. Of course police would not have been inclined to investigate properly if they thought the murder would reveal ongoing corruption or even their own involvement in Morgan’s death to hide what he knew.
This has resulted in several re-investigations and an independent panel (the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel) headed by Baroness O’Loan which produced its long-awaited report last week. (written in June 2021).
Another element of this case worthy of note is that the police and other organisations were accused by the panel of institutional corruption.
This was defined by the panel as:
“Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
The report into the murder makes depressing reading. It details how The Metropolitan Police systemically failed the Morgan family and then lied and attempted to cover up their failures in order to preserve their professional reputation.
Again this is a pattern familiar to anyone who has dealt at any level with the organisations I mention in this blog.
On that basis all of the organisations mentioned in this blog to date are also institutionally corrupt since they also conceal or deny failures to maintain a professional reputation. That this takes place even in the face of overwhelming evidence of incompetence, deceit and failure.
Arguably since 1987 this kind of behaviour has grown more prevalent from state-run organisations. Again the report states there was a failure in the Morgan case:
“to acknowledge professional incompetence, individuals’ venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures”.
The British state has a pattern of dealing with the failure of its agents and organisations. The Morgan family’s statement following the results of the panel say that:
“At almost every step, we found ourselves lied to, fobbed off, bullied, degraded and let down, time and time again.”
Again since 1987 the means by which state funded organisations deny error, evade blame and continue to practice incompetence and institutional corruption have been refined and improved with each passing decade.
The panel found that:
“culture of obfuscation and a lack of candour is unhealthy in any public service”
Danial Morgan’s brother has stated:
“police don’t like to own up to anything” and that his “experience of the police over many, many years is that they put their own reputation over anything else”.
To relate that to the wider picture again I say that this is equally true any of the organisations mentioned in this blog.
The Met has attempted to downplay the panel’s findings by claiming the conclusions it reached applied to the police 35 years ago. This is a standard diversion tactic organisations use.
Panel member Professor Rodney Morgan shot back that “institutional corruption is not used in a historic sense – it is used in a current sense”.
You may be interested to learn that Britain is the most corrupt country in the world, according to journalist Roberto Saviano, who spent more than a decade exposing the criminal dealings of the Italian Mafia.
A request was made in August 2020 for data from a subdivision of The Ministry of Justice. The response (issued outside the time limits for such in law) stated:
This is actually a two-headed matter. A complaint of poor service thrown in with a data access request for the data which proves the grounds of the complaint are correct and that multiple errors occurred. Needless to say the subdivision ignored the complaint and requested I make the data access request to London, as seen above.
You will see how this letter refers me to Data Access office as being the correct source of the data required. So Data Access were contacted in late September 2020 and the data again requested from them.
Some five months later and several chase-ups by email and Data Access deny they are the source of the data. The data is apparently best obtained from the office I originally wrote to.
There is little that can be said for this game of piggy-in-the-middle except to say that I will not play it.
The source of the apparent information that they cannot fulfil this data access request are unnamed “senior managers” whose details I have requested. Odd how it’s always some unnamed person as the source of an instruction that sends the public on a wild goose chase.
The disclosure team for MoJ are ultimately responsible for the production of data access requests made to sub departments within MoJ. The requests made in mid-2020 are indeed data access requests. They seek specific data and this is clear from the requests themselves. It is the job of Disclosure Team to work with the sub department of MoJ I first communicated with to obtain the data from them and then relay it to me.
It looks very much like both offices are attempting to evade the production of data via a game of piggy-in-the-middle and delay. Unsurprisingly the subsidiary office originally contacted has failed to respond to the initial complaint linked to this data request.
This request has been before Data Access office since September 2020 and has only just received the response of “go back to the start”. Taking this delay in response alone as a single issue would render the handling of the request wholly unacceptable and a breach of the relevant law.
By seeking to frustrate the request in this way The Ministry of Justice has earned itself a referral to The Information Commissioner’s Office.
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”.
I write in relation to the Julian Assange extradition attempt by the US government. This has received a ruling today which has stated that Assange cannot be extradited to America on the basis of mental health concerns.
It is widely considered that the case against Assange has been cooked up as revenge against Wikileaks publication of atrocities by the US military in the Middle East. That such was designed to frighten any journalist in the future from exposure of similar state backed horrors.
As this post will detail The Ministry of Justice in the UK is quite prepared to commit abuse of process to also persecute those who publish material which exposes its wrongdoing and incompetence.
Assange in transit in a prison van from Belmarsh high security prison where he has been held.
The ruling in the case is that extradition cannot take place as America cannot guarantee the safety of Assange in a US prison in the light of his apparent suicidal ideations. These thoughts probably stem from his continued persecution for many years over Wikileaks publication of video footage of atrocities committed by the US military against civilians.
The points made regarding the safety of the US prison system of course apply equally – if not more so – to British prisons. Belmarsh was the choice of prison for Assange on the basis of the additional security given to inmates there.
The other thing that struck me about the judgment is that the extradition to America was refused not on grounds which assert and re-enforce the freedom of the press or the ability of such as Wikileaks to publish material which challenges authority but on the grounds of safety for the defendant.
The decision was made by a District Judge. Anyone familiar enough with the British legal system will likely be aware that the judge has chosen an anaemic third way in order to dismiss the case for extradition. No wonder the decision is likely to be appealed! Rather than outright confrontation of the prosecution case which was designed both as an act of revenge against Assange and a threat to any future journalists exposing official misconduct the judge chose a way which avoids these prosecution arguments being confronted and carefully debunked.
If a decision was made to extradite on the basis of the case put on behalf of the prosecution then the risk to press freedom in future would have been grave. As it is the case has been a warning shot to anyone thinking of publishing contentious material regarding state backed misconduct.
The judge has accepted the proposition advanced by Assange’s legal team that an American prison is not sufficiently safe for someone with suicidal thoughts.
Were he still alive Jeffrey Epstein would also likely agree that an American prison is an insufficiently safe environment for people who have – like Assange – embarrassed or risk embarrassing those who hold the levers of power in America.
We don’t have to look to a high-profile case such as this to see official misuse of power in an act of revenge against those who publish material which would embarrass authority, as our own Minisry of Justice in Britain are quite prepared to carry out misconduct in public office in this way.
In May this year I was sent material in error by MoJ. This was a letter intended for the Metropolitan Police in relation to Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against an individual in the Kent area.
The data sent to me in error constituted a considerable Data Protection Act breach and covered the name, address, date of birth and bank details of the individual and other compromising data. Such data in the wrong hands could have resulted in considerable fraud committed against the data subject by the misuse of his personal details. I informed both The Information Commissioner’s Office and the data subject about this.
I also posted – with no small amount of schadenfreude – the tweet seen below. No aspect of the content of this tweet breached revealed data on the data subject and thus was not actionable. It simply and quite rightly embarrassed MoJ as an organisation which is incompetent in the handling of personal data.
Despite the fact that MoJ were wholly in the wrong over this entire matter they decided to go on the offensive and instructed West Yorkshire Police to arrest me in relation to offences under The Data Protection Act.
Police, having seen no evidence of any offence committed in civil or criminal law, nevertheless took the word of MoJ as gospel and in so doing broke the law themselves not least by committing a wrongful arrest.
I was arrested and held in custody at the police station. It was relegated much later in an email chain from the Head of Security at MoJ that the purpose of this was “to give him a shock”. I’d embarrassed MoJ in public with the tweet and reported the data breech to ICO. Consequently MoJ wished to revenge itself and were prepared to commit misconduct in public office to do so.
Of course the other thing the emails between MoJ and West Yorkshire Police also reveal is the sudden loss of interest in the matter when I was arrested – the arrest being the short, sharp shock MoJ was aiming for. An internal investigation by police also admits there were no grounds for arrest and no offence had been committed.
The point of my explaining all this shabby behaviour and breach of duty of care from two shifty little organisations is clear. Just as Assange has been intimidated and subject to abuse of process because of what he published so have I.
Such actions from organisations such as MoJ and West Yorkshire Police serve to wholly undermine public confidence in the organisations themselves and damage their own reputation. Further it exposes the organisations as being comprised of the inept, the incompetent and the petty-minded.
If MoJ or West Yorkshire Police would like a right of reply to the content of this article then I am happy to publish any point of view they may give. I may equally produce further evidence in response which confirms the facts already stated above!
Police forces are notoriously bad at responding to subject access requests (those are requests for your own personal data) as well as requests for data overall from the force, especially if the request for access is made by the public.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has recently published a report (link seen below) outlining just what an absolute catastrophe police responses to these requests are.
As ever with such a report the real eye-opener are the recommendations made by ICO. In this instance these are nine points which show how UK police forces are failing to deal with data access requests in anything like an efficient and professional way. Often this is because the purpose of data access legislation clashes with police’s wish to keep information regarding errors in procedure and process wholly secret.
Title page of ICO’s report.
This report will cause consternation in particular at failing Humberside Police, a force subject to many eye-watering fines from ICO in the past for failures to comply with the law on data access by the public. The recommendations ICO suggest will likely be impossible for the force to implement.
West Yorkshire Police – as expected one of the forces most likely to break the law to try to avoid the production of data – said at a meeting convened by their Police and Crime Commissioner recently that they would be looking at increasing the staffing in the Information Management Department in the next year (budget permitting) to cope with the demands made upon it. “Looking at” and “budget permitting” is another way of saying that nothing will be done to address the problem.
I’ve written on here many times before about how Humberside Police are particularly useless, even in a hotly contested field of local forces.
However even I fell off my chair at the sheer incompetence of the subject access response provided by their Information Compliance department this week.
A subject access request provided by the force amounts to a nonfeasance as the response:
1. Fails to provide the data requested.
2. Is issued outside the legal time limit for a response to be provided.
3. Repeats back the same information put in the original request.
Here’s the letter in full. I have redacted the header.
The key sentences are in the fourth and fifth paragraphs seen above. These are reproduced from the original request. Data cannot be obtained from the Police National Computer – however data that has been entered into the PNC by a local force can be obtained from the same regional police force. Hence the request to Humberside Police.
The substantive reply is seen below:
Here we focus on the second paragraph. It essentially repeats the data I put to police in the first instance.
Consequently the force has failed to react correctly to the subject access request in every conceivable aspect.
This suggests that the intention is to continue frustrate any further request made for the data using the rights conferred in italics in the letter to do so as the response to any further requests that might be made.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has been informed.
Legal Babble 