UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 4:53 PM
To: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Meeting with Don McLure & removal of restrictions

Dear Jamie Fennell,

(1) I wrote back to Tom Blackburne-Maze stating I did not accept any conditions being placed upon me by him or anyone else (see attached email dated 14th of August 2017). I also offered to meet him or whoever has the responsibility in Milton Keynes Council to resolve this matter & he did not refute the contents of my email or accept the offer which I made to him which I do not think is fair or reasonable treatment given the facts pertaining to this matter.

(2) I require the restrictions which have been unfairly placed upon me to be removed given they are based on unfounded allegations which I deem to be defamation of character which is both a criminal & civil offence.

(3) I also require a meeting with Don McLure without any further delay or interference from yourself. I have been advised to take this course of action by Urmi Solanki who works for the Department for Communities & Local Government (see attached letter dated 6th December 2017).

(4) Please will you also confirm in your reply the name of the person who told Richard Gates I did not attend the appeal hearing if it was not yourself.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

From: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 1:58 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: Meeting

Dear Mr Mortimer

As I previously stated in my email dated 28 November, you were told by Tom Blackburne-Maze in his appeal decision letter dated 9 August that contact restrictions will remain in place for six months, at which point they will be reviewed. This decision is binding and will not be discussed again until then. I can also confirm that no meetings will be arranged for you with Council employees, other than those for which the Council decides necessary to provide a statutory duty.

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 5:54 PM
To: Medina, Tammie ; Jamie Fennell ; gatesr@parliament.uk
Subject: Re: Meeting

Dear Tammie Medina,

It was Jamie Fennell who gave me Don McLure contact details so I could contact him (as you can see from the message below from Jamie Fennell). I have also asked both Richard Gates & Jamie Fennell to remove the unfair restrictions which have been put on me given that I have not threatened anyone. I have been trying to resolve this matter with Milton Keynes council for over 18 months & nobody in Milton Keynes council so far has been willing to help or provide me with a resolution. Please will you kindly send my email on to Don McLure so I can arrange to meet him so this matter can be resolved & can you also confirm you have done that in your reply.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Medina, Tammie
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 4:59 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: Meeting

Good afternoon, Mr Mortimer.

With regard to your email to Don McLure this afternoon, I can confirm that I have forwarded your email to Jamie Fennell as your single point of contact.

Please ensure you direct any further correspondence to Jamie Fennell.

Regards.

Tammie Medina

Senior Executive Assistant to:

Nicole Jones - Corporate Director Resources

Don McLure - Interim Corporate Director Resources

T: 01908 253952

E: tammie.medina@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online: www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council | Saxon Court | 502 Avebury Boulevard | Central Milton Keynes | MK9 3HS

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Don.McLure@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Meeting.

Dear Don McLure,

Please will you kindly tell me when I can have a meeting with you which will need to be at least an hour long regarding the problem I have had with the benefits department over the last 18 months where they have repeatedly failed to use the correct financial information in the benefit assessments which they have done despite the fact they have been given this information on more than one occasion by myself & the Milton Keynes CAB. I have been through Milton Keynes councils 3 stage complaints process & Milton Keynes council have refused to provided me with a resolution which I do not think is fair or reasonable. I have been accused of withholding information, threatening a member of staff & money laundering all of which I have not done. I have not made any unreasonable demands of the benefit department from day one & I have only ever asked for & expected the benefit department to use the correct financial information in the benefit assessments which they have done.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Fennell, Jamie
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:49 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Reference No FS55024265

Dear Mr Mortimer

The current Section 151 Officer for Milton Keynes Council is Don McLure. His contact details are Don.McLure@milton-keynes.gov.uk , tel 01908 253952.

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:30 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Richard Gates,

The tribunal hearing which was heard by district judge Mrs May did not consider the complaint which I have made & district judge Mrs May told me it was because the HM court service set a remit which would not allow her to consider it. I was expecting for there to be another tribunal appeal hearing & while I was waiting to be told when it would be I wrote to the HM court service to seek clarification about the remit which they had set & I was told by the HM court service service no further action will be taken. This means my complaint has not been dealt with by either Milton Keynes council or the HM courts & tribunal service despite doing as I have been told to do over the last 18 months which I do not think is fair or reasonable when I have followed the correct procedures. Please will you kindly remove the restrictions which have been unfairly put on me given that I did not threatened anyone & I would also like this matter to be resolved.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:58 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Will you please cease emailing other members of staff, as I have told you on numerous occasions all such correspondence is sent to me unanswered as per the restricted contact terms imposed on you.

The problem you have is with MKC and the our understanding is the LGO won't take this any further as you chose to withdraw from the tribunal process, given MKC were following correct procedures and you chose not to, this is something you will have to take up with them. Although I suspect you will not be given the chance of another tribunal.

This really does highlight the importance of following correct procedures and we sincerely hope in any future dealings you have with any organisation you will ensure you do so at all times.

Our file is closed.

Regards,

Richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:06 AM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Richard Gates,

The benefit department created this problem by refusing to use the correct financial information which they have repeatedly been given. I only did as it says one must do on their own paperwork which is to tell them if the figures which they have used in their assessment are not correct. I did this on several occasions over the first few months & every time the benefit department did another assessment they did not use the correct financial information. I do not know why they would not use the correct information & I decided to contacted the MK CAB to ask for their help. The MK CAB sent a email to Peter Smyth detailing my earnings over the last 5 years & sought clarification from him which he ignored. I was hoping at one point Rebecca Peck would resolve this mater & I thought she was going to help by asking the various people involved why they had not used the right information. However, after listening to what I said as I went through all the correspondence with her she then decided to claim I had threatened someone which I did not do & refused to help. I was then told I had to go to a independent tribunal as it was part of the councils 3 stage complaints process only to be told by district judge Mrs May she could not consider the complaint which I had made because the remit which had been set by the HM court service would not allow her to consider it. I have done everything I have been told including asking the LGO to investigate this matter on more than one occasion over the last 18 months & so far the LGO has done nothing to help. I have not made any unreasonable demands from the benefit department. I have only ever asked for & expected them to use the correct information which they have repeatedly refused to do from day one. I do not know what it is I am supposed to do now in order to get this matter resolved.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:33 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Mr Mortimer,

1 I was told by MKC you withdrew from the tribunal after the judge refused to be drawn away from the original remit by you asking for an investigation into your complaint against MKC.

2 MKC procedure we assume. We are assured they have followed correct procedures throughout.

3 Tribunal is for the specific financial matters, not complaints about a council, that is the role of the LGO (as we have been advising you for months).

4 Because it is fair and impartial.

As I have said throughout you need to follow correct procedures yet once again you seem determined to create new procedures. The complaint issue is the perfect example. You spent months asking us to deal with the complaint and still effectively are! You have been told throughout we cannot and the LGO does this. Yet you tried to have the tribunal do so as well!

Regards,

Richard

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 8:54 AM
To: gatesr@parliament.uk
Subject: Tribunal appeal decision notice

Dear Richard Gates,

Please find the tribunal appeal decision notice attached which I was sent dated 16/02/2017. I was expecting for there to be another tribunal hearing. However, after I questioned the remit which was set by the HM courts & tribunals service which stopped district judge Mrs May considering the complaint which I have made about maladministration by Milton Keynes council the court service said no further action would be taken as the previous documentation which I emailed to you on the 24th of November 2017 shows. Please let me know if you require any further information.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 10:25 AM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Richard Gates,

Please will you kindly clarify

(1) who told you I refused to attend the tribunal hearing?
(2) why did Milton Keynes council set up & ask me to attend a tribunal hearing if it does not deal with complaints?
(3) how could I obtain a resolution to the complaint which I have made if the HM Courts and Tribunals Service set a remit which did not allow district judge Mrs May to consider it?
(4) how can the tribunal service be reasonably considered to be fair & impartial?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 9:37 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Oh so you did attend the tribunal the council set up, I was advised you refused.

Please send me the tribunal findings I would be most interested to see them?

Regards,

Richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:54 AM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Richard Gates,

I do not know what it is I am supposed to do now. Please will you kindly tell me exactly what it is you think I have not done. I have done everything I have been told to do over the last 18 months & nothing has been done to correct the mistakes which the benefit department have made or to provide me with a resolution.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:20 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Fw: How can I obtain a resolution?

All you need to do is follow the correct procedures MKC have offered, you chose to refuse to do so.

I would suggest you telling Jamie you will attend the tribunal, however that offer may not be on the table now, I wouldn't know it is all council procedures nothing to do with MPs.

I will send him this email for you.

Richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:16 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Richard Gates,

Please will you kindly ask Jamie Fennell to comply with the requests which I have made to him in the letter below.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Re: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Jamie Fennell,

I did not threaten anyone in the letter which I sent to Rebecca Peck dated 17th October 2016 & I would like the restrictions which have been placed upon me to be removed. I have not made any unreasonable demands of the benefit department from day one. I have only ever asked for & expected the benefit department to use the correct financial information which they have been given on more than one occasion over the last 18 months. I do not think it is reasonable or acceptable for you to ignore this request or for that information to be used.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 3:32 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Mr Mortimer

1) I refer you to the letter sent to you dated 17th October 2016 (sent by email) from Rebecca Peck.

2) As stated in my email to you on 17th November 2017, I will not be entering into any further correspondence on this matter.

3) I cannot comment on what the Court Service do or advise.

4) I again refer you to the letter to you dated 17th October 2016 (sent by email) from Rebecca Peck – the next stage was to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: 21 November 2017 10:43
To: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: How can I obtain a resolution?

Dear Jamie Fennell,

Please will you kindly tell me (1) who have I threatened at Milton Keynes Council & can you kindly provide me with a copy of the evidence (2) Why have the benefit department repeatedly refused to use the correct financial information over the last 18 months to do their assessments (3) Why did the court service set a remit which stopped district judge Mrs May from hearing the complaint which I made at the tribunal appeal hearing & (4) how can I obtain a resolution to the complaint which I have made if nobody in Milton Keynes council is willing to look at the written record & act in a reasonable & lawful way to correct the mistakes which have been made?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:45 PM
To: J.Burns@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Jane Burns,

I went to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service appeal hearing which was heard by district judge Mrs May at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes on the 16/02/2017. This is despite the fact that I did not ask for or consent to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service becoming involved as they do not deal with complaints. At the appeal hearing Peter Smyth represented Milton Keynes Council who is a senior benefit assessment officer. Peter Smyth started off by telling district judge Mrs May we were there because of the complaint I have made about the benefit department creating a bill of approximately £5k by retrospectively misapplying paragraphs (4) and (5) of regulation 38 of the housing benefit regulations 2006 which breaches my human rights. Milton Keynes Council have constantly ignored what I have told them in person & in writing. Peter Smyth went on to tell district judge Mrs May I had not provided the benefit department with information which it had requested from me. I told district judge Mrs May this was not correct & the Milton Keynes citizens advice bureau had written to the benefit department on my behalf seeking clarification about what information it required & the benefit department had failed to clarify what information it required. Milton Keynes council had previously asked me to provide them with information about a business credit card which I did not have & could not provide them with. I took 5 years of business bank statements with me to the appeal hearing which I offered to show district judge Mrs May who accused me of money laundering after she had looked at them for a couple of minutes. When I asked district judge Mrs May to show me exactly what she was looking at on our bank statements she pointed to payments which had been made in to & out of our account with the same reference number which I informed district judge Mrs May were by & from the credit card company which we used to accept payments form customers for removal jobs which we did. District judge Mrs May asked me to take the bank statements to the council so they could be photocopied which I did. District judge Mrs May would not consider the complaint which I had made about maladministration by Milton Keynes council & told me it was because the remit which had been set by the Courts Service would not allow her to consider it. I sent a email to the court service in Birmingham seeking clarification about the remit which they set. I asked the court service how I could obtain a resolution to the complaint which I had made & how the appeal hearing could be reasonably considered to be fair & impartial if they set a remit for the appeal hearing which excluded the complaint which a had made. I have been told in writing by a lady called Anita Prince who is a customer contact cover clerk at the court service in Birmingham that she was not authorised to bind Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals in any way via electronic means. I have since been told by Deborah Fox who is a member of the customer contact team at the Birmingham service no further action will be taken. Milton Keynes council have also confirmed in writing I have been through their 3 stage complaints process. However, I have not been provided me with a resolution which provides redress for the financial & psychological distress which I have suffered. Milton Keynes council have destroyed my family business over the last 18 months for no good or justifiable reason & they have left me destitute which I do not think is fair or reasonable. I do not think there is any reason why the local Government should not investigate this matter now. I have a complete copy of the written record which shows what I have said is correct.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: J.Burns@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 6:41 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Mr Mortimer

Mr Lewis made the decision on your complaint back in November last year. Since then you have produced no new evidence to call that decision in to question. You had, in any event, the right of appeal to a tribunal which put your complaint outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

That remains the case and the Ombudsman cannot help you. There will be no further correspondence with you on this complaint.

Yours sincerely

Jane Burns
Assessment Team Co-ordinator

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 3:44 AM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear P Lewis,

Please help. I have been through Milton Keynes councils 3 stage complaints process & they have refused to provide me with a resolution or to correct the mistakes which they have made.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:08 PM
To: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: Tenancy query - 13 Stanton Avenue, Bradville - Mr Mortimer

I have written back each time an assessment has been done as I was told to do if it was not correct & nobody in the benefit department has ever been willing to use the correct financial information which they were given by myself on more than one occasion & also by the CAB. I have never made any unreasonable demands of the benefit department. I have only ever asked the benefit department to use the correct information & to correct the mistakes which they have made which to date they haver been unwilling to do.

From: Jamie.Fennell@Milton-keynes.gov.uk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:26 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: Tenancy query - 13 Stanton Avenue, Bradville - Mr Mortimer

Dear Mr Mortimer

There are currently no outstanding pieces of work on your benefit claim. On the 13th June 2017 you disagreed with the decision dated 9th June 2017 made by Charlotte Hale. The decision was therefore looked at again by another Senior Benefit Officer, Angela Vick, who decided that Charlotte’s assessment was correct. Angela’s response included the right of appeal within 1 month, however you did not invoke this right.

As you are aware, if you have a specific change of circumstance to report you must do so, giving clear details of what the change is and the date it took place.

Change of circumstances should now be reported on our website by following the link below:

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/benefits-council-tax/do-it-on-line

I will not be entering into any further correspondence on this matter.

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:59 PM
To: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: Re: Tenancy query - 13 Stanton Avenue, Bradville - Mr Mortimer

Thank you for answering that question. Please will you kindly resolve the problem which the benefit department have created for me by ignoring what I have told them in person & in writing over the last 18 months which has lead to the collapse of my family business which has left me destitute or tell me who I need to see at Milton Keynes council who will correct the mistakes which they have made so this matter can be resolved?

From: Fennell, Jamie
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:48 PM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: FW: Tenancy query - 13 Stanton Avenue, Bradville - Mr Mortimer

Dear Mr Mortimer

As your Single Point of Contact, I have been asked by the Housing Estate team to pass on this response to your tenancy query:

1. If you move out and give notice to quit, we would end your tenancy and assess you son in line with the current housing allocations scheme.

If your son is a single person with no mental or physical health problems or priority need, he would likely need to seek alternative accommodation himself.

2. If you die, your son could succeed the tenancy but he would only be allowed to remain if the property was suitable for him and he was not under-occupying.

If he was under-occupying, he would have to downsize.

It may be worth noting that the Housing and Planning Act is soon to come into force which will only give spouses or civil partners succession rights.

3. Your only other option to allow your son to remain in the property would be to purchase it.

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:13 PM
To: rents@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: I do not know how I can help myself

Dear Clare Dowds,

Please will you kindly tell me who I need to see at Milton Keynes council who will correct the mistake which the benefit department have made over the last 18 months to both my rent & council tax accounts?

I was self employed but due to the problems which Milton Keynes Council have created for me by ignoring what I have told them in person & in writing over the last 18 months this has lead to the collapse of my family business which has left me destitute. I do not know how I can help myself if nobody will listen & act on the information which they have repeatedly been given. I have a complete copy of the written record which shows that I have said is correct & so far I have not been able to find anyone who will help & resolve this matter?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 5:51 AM
To: Petchey, Martin
Subject: Re: [EXT] I do not know what else I can do

Dear Martin Petchey,

You asked me to send you a copy of the LGO adjudication which I have done.
Please will you kindly tell me if you have contacted the LGO again & if so
what he has said?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:56 AM
To: Peter Marland
Subject: Re: Rebecca Peck's false accusation

Dear Peter Marland,

Please will you kindly clarify (A) if you told everyone at the council meeting which I attended I had threatened someone at Milton Keynes council because Rebecca Peck told you I did (B) who did she say I have threatened & (C) have you actually read what I said to Rebecca Peck which shows her accusation is not correct?

I am concerned this false accusation has since been repeated by both another member of staff at Milton Keynes Council & also Richard Gates who is my MP. I would also like you to confirm that you are aware defamation of character is both a criminal & a civil offence?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Petchey, Martin
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:28 PM
To: David Mortimer
Subject: Re: [EXT] I do not know what else I can do

David

I have spoken to the Local Government Ombudsman, or at least a member of his staff. He tells me that he considered your complaint last year and has sent an adjudication. Is it possible for you to send me a copy of what was said, as they are unable to do so.

Martin Petchey

Sent from my iPad

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:23 PM
To: J.Burns@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear J Burns,

This matter should of been resolved by Milton Keynes council over 18 months ago & then I would not be in the position which I am now which has been caused by Milton Keynes Council being unwilling to help. The problem I have had from day one with Milton Keynes Council is they have ignored what I have told them in person & in writing as the written record shows. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution. The benefits department did not use the correct financial information which they were given on more than one occasion & they have repeatedly refused to correct the mistakes which they have made which has left me destitute. I tried to get the CAB to help & after a lady there confirmed what I said she was removed & nobody else has helped since. I have not been able to find a solicitor who will bring a claim against Milton Keynes council. I have also tried to get the Local Government Ombudsman to help who has done nothing to help after he spoke to Jamie Fennell who is one of the people who I have made a official complaint about. I have also asked my MP Richard Gates to help on several occasions over the last 18 months but he has shown no interest in helping or even looking at the written record after he spoke to Peter Smyth who mislead him. I have a complete copy of the written record which shows what I have said is correct & I do not know what else I can do other than to make people aware of the facts & ask for help which so far nobody has been willing to give me. I have nothing left now & it's just a matter of time before I snap if this matter is not resolved.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:04 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

13 November 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bint
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:56 PM
To: David Mortimer
Cc: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: re[2]: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

David,

The written record will show that you are already following the proper processes to resolve your dispute with the Council (and/or with individual Council officers), and that there is nothing useful that individual Ward Councillors for other wards (such as myself) can do to help you, in terms of the processes. You have all the contact details you need, in terms of your own Ward Councllors, all the Cabinet members, and any relevant Council officers.

Regards.

John Bint (Cllr).

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 3:34 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: I do not know what else I can do

Dear Richard Gates,

You might of asked MKC to enter in to dialogue with me but they have ignored what I have told them from day one in person & in writing as the written record shows. You also seem to think I did not attend the tribunal hearing which is not correct. I did attend the tribunal hearing even though I did not ask for the court service to become involved as they do not deal with complaints. I am afraid Peter Smyth has mislead you & he also tried to do the same thing at the tribunal hearing. I have also made you aware the Local Government Ombudsman has not acted on the information which I have brought to his attention & he has done nothing to help since he spoke to Jamie Fennell. The benefit department did not used the correct financial information which they were given on more than one occasion & they have repeatedly refused to correct the mistakes which they have made. I have a complete copy of the written record which shows what I have said is correct. I do not know what else I can do other than to make you aware of the facts & ask for your help.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Petchey, Martin
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:50 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer

Could you send me a copy of the Local Government Ombudsman's adjudication, if you have it in electronic form?

Many thanks

Martin Petchey

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message-----
From: Petchey, Martin
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 9:39 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer

My advice to you has not changed: your best source of help is through the Local Government Ombudsman, whose office was set up to adjudicate in these sorts of disputes.

Martin Petchey
Councillor, Stantonbury Ward

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message-----
From: Eastman, Derek
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 4:38 PM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

David

Thank you for your e-mail.

If you believe the council has acted in an unlawful way then you need to either contact a solicitor or take the matter to the ombudsman.

I am not qualified to assist in matters of law.

Regards

Derek Eastman
Councillor Newport Pagnell South
Chair MK Council Liberal Democrat Group
Chair Development Control Committee
Member Executive Scrutiny Committee
Member Joint Negotiation Committee
Member Appeals Commission

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Peter Marland
Subject: Do you accept liability

Dear Peter Marland,

Please will you kindly clarify if you accept liability for the unlawful & unreasonable action which has & continues to be taken by the benefit department which has ignored what it has repeatedly been told both in person & in writing over the last 18 months as the written record shows. The benefit department have & are continuing to commit fraud by making up a completely false rent account when Milton Keynes Council is fully aware & responsible for putting me out of business & it also knows I have no income.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 12:19 PM
To: Peter Marland ; leader@labour.org.uk ; Legal Queries ; theteam@labour.org.uk
Subject: I am deeply concerned about how corrupt Milton Keynes Council has become under your stewardship

Dear Peter Marland,

I am deeply concerned about how corrupt Milton Keynes Council has become under your stewardship & how the so called local councillors in Milton Keynes are more than happy to help the council by ignoring & doing nothing whatsoever to help constituents when the Council have acted in a unreasonable & unlawful way (as the written record shows) which has destroyed their family business & left them destitute.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:02 AM
To: mayt@parliament.uk ; urmi.solanki@communities.gsi.gov.uk ; sajid.javid.mp@parliament.uk ; Peter Marland ; theteam@labour.org.uk ; Legal Queries ; leader@labour.org.uk
Subject: Official Complaint Ref: 3418082

Dear Theresa May,

Please will you kindly clarify (A) what action Urmi Solanki has taken & (B) what action Urmi Solanki is legally required to take when a official complaint has been made to the department of Local Government & Communities about Milton Keynes Council acting in a unreasonable & unlawful way reference: 3457875?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bint
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 5:46 PM
To: David Mortimer
Cc: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

David,

I'm sorry your underlying dispute with the Council has not been resolved and that as a result of the way the Council has handled the matter, you have now (apparently) raised complaints about the actions/conduct of specific Council officers. I note your comments that the way the matter has been handled has caused you considerable distress.

The short answer to your specific question is No, I do not wish to become involved in the details in any way. I've provided you with some pointers on process, I've satisfied myself you have the relevant skills and qualifications to be able to express your concerns, and generally "navigate the processes", without any further help. And as you are a resident of MK (but not a resident of my ward), it seems to me that I have more than fulfilled any reasonable expectations you might have of me as a Ward Councillor.

The Council has processes which I would advise you to follow, patiently and courteously, in respect of both the original problem and any subsequent complaints about individual Council officers. In some cases, these include final escallation to an Ombudsman. And (if I haven't said it already), let me add: I would advise you to take independent legal advice.

Regards,

John Bint (Cllr)
MK Conservatives - working for local people, all year round.

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: Re: Acting unreasonably & unlawfully is subject to legal challenge

Dear Jamie Fennell,

I replied to this at the time as the written records shows which has now been printed off & submitted as evidence of abuse by you & those who have already been named in the official complaint I have made which Milton Keynes Council has refused to resolve despite the fact that I have been through it’s three stage complaints process which is not fit for purpose. Milton Keynes council is a unlawful local authority which is subject to legal challenge. I suggest you seek legal advice.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Fennell, Jamie
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 3:47 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [EXT] Acting unreasonably & unlawfully is subject to legal challenge

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for your email below.

The figures used in the calculation by Charlotte Hale dated 8th June 2016 were contained in her letter to you on the same date. I have attached it to this email for ease of reference.

Your request for further information regarding your claim will have to be made via a Subject Access Request – please follow this link to the Council website for further information on how to do this (in particular the ‘How to Access Information’ pdf document.

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/your-council-and-elections/council-information-and-accounts/data-protection-and-confidentiality

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:28 PM
To: urmi.solanki@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Ref: 3418082

Dear Urmi Solanki,

I write in reply to your letter dated the 6th of September about the official complaint I have made to the Department of Local Government & Communities about Milton Keynes Council acting in a unreasonable & unlawful way which has caused me a huge amount of completely unnecessary & unjustifiable financial & psychological distress over the last 18 months in order to seek redress which you have given the reference: 3457875 to seek future clarification about what action you are legally required to take when a official complaint of this kind has been made to the department of Local Government & Communities?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Eastman, Derek
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 8:00 AM
To: David Mortimer
Subject: Re: [EXT] Milton Keynes Council to consult on rough sleepers strategy

Dear David

Thanks you for your e-mail.

I regret I can do no more than repeat what I advised in my previous e-mail reply.

If you have a complaint against Milton Keynes Council I can only advise that you raise this with the Local Authority Ombudsman. Their contact details are on line.

Regards

Derek Eastman
Councillor Newport Pagnell South
Chair MK Council Liberal Democrat Group
Chair Development Control Committee
Member Executive Scrutiny Committee
Member Joint Negotiation Committee
Member Appeals Commission

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:19 PM
To: Vick, Angela
Cc: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: Acting unreasonably & unlawfully is subject to legal challenge

Dear Angela Vick,

Please will you kindly clarify exactly what figures you have used in your calculations for each of the last 5 years & I also need you to confirm in writing if you have provided me with a rent rebate over the same time period as the written record shows I have requested on more than one occasion or why you have not done as I have requested when the benefit department have provided my business partner with a rent rebate. My Ex business partner has made me aware of 2 members of staff at Milton Keynes Council have told him not to work for Mortimers removals anymore. It is my duty to inform you Milton Keynes Council has been reported to the Department of Local Government & Communities for acting unlawfully & I am also currently waiting for confirmation in writing from the Pro Bono Law Unit as to weather they will bring a claim against Milton Keynes Council for violating my Human Rights which is subject to legal challenge.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

From: Vick, Angela
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:11 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Cc: Fennell, Jamie
Subject: RE: [EXT] F.A.O Charlotte Hale

Dear Mr Mortimer

I am writing in response to your email dated 13th June 17 in which you state that you do not accept the figures used in the calculation of your earnings assessed by Charlotte Hale.

Firstly may I apologise for the delay in replying.

I have reviewed the figures used to ensure that we have made a correct assessment of your income. I have now checked this fully and I confirm that I am satisfied that it is a correct assessment of your income in accordance with the Housing Benefit Regulations and the decision remains unchanged.

If you are still not happy with this decision you have the right to appeal in writing within 1 month of the date on this email.

Yours sincerely

Angela Vick

Senior Assessment Officer

-----Original Message-----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:41 AM
To: cllralicebramall@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

I have telephoned Carole Mills office on more than one occasion over the
last 18 months & I have also emailed her directly a few times & she has not
replied or done anything to help.

-----Original Message-----
From: cllralicebramall@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 10:27 AM
To: David Mortimer
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

Dear David,

Apologies for my delay in response. It sounds like this maybe whistleblowing, in which case, I would encourage you to contact the Chief Executive - Carole Mills.

Would you like me to forward your email on to her?

Kind regards,

Alice Jenkins
Tel: 07896 004355

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 4:24 PM
To: Jamie Fennell
Subject: Acting unreasonably & unlawfully is subject to legal challenge.

Dear Jamie Fennell,

All public bodies make decisions, usually many every day. The types and categories of decisions are varied, ranging from local authorities making decisions on planning applications, to government bodies deciding to issue guidance and regulatory decisions in relation to corporations and individuals.

When exercising their statutory functions, public bodies have the capacity to affect the lives of individuals, groups of citizens and industry.

Both the common law and statute lay down parameters within which such decisions should be made. The overall purpose of this is simple: to avoid the state and its agencies wielding such power in a way that is arbitrary.

Most decisions are capable of challenge by way of an appeal mechanism and, failing that, judicial review. No public body wants to bear the expense and uncertainty of challenges in courts and tribunals. More importantly, decision makers in the public sector will wish to make sure that they get their processes right so they can make robust and lasting decisions.

This Practice Note provides a practical guide to the law relating to key aspects of decision making to minimise the risks of public bodies making decisions that are unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

Legal Requirements

Declaration of Interests

Public bodies should make decisions dispassionately according to the law and the materials before them. It is important that decision makers have no personal interest in the subject on which they are adjudicating.

It is a fundamental principle of law that a decision maker should not be a “judge in his own cause”. This principle applies to all public decision makers.

In the leading case in this area, R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ungarte (No. 2) [2001] 1 AC 119, Lord Browne-Wilkinson made this clear (att 132G-133C):

“The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause … If a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in the outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification …. In such a case, once it is shown that the judge is himself a party to the cause or has a relevant interest in the subject matter, he is disqualified without any investigation into whether there was a likelihood of bias. The mere fact of his interest is sufficient to disqualify him unless he has made sufficient disclosure”.

Examples of interests which a decision maker may have in the subject of a decision he is making which are likely to preclude his participation in the decision are as follows:

where the decision will affect a friend or relation
where the decision maker has a financial interest in its outcome
where the decision maker is a director of an organisation affected by its outcome
where the decision maker is a member of a group campaigning for one outcome or another
where the decision maker’s spouse or civil partner has an interest in the outcome

The Local Government Model Code of Conduct made under section 50 of the Local Government Act 2000 provides both a model and a template for the declaration of interests by decision makers. Part 2 of the Code provides for the declaration of personal interests by members and for them not to take part in decision-making where these are affected.

Although a very close connection with the subject of the decision will automatically disqualify a person from making the decision in question, declaration of a less direct interest before the decision is made may permit them to take part. In these circumstances, the person concerned and any colleagues participating in the decision making process must decide whether the connection would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision maker would be biased if they took part (Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67).

As a matter of practicality, the decision maker should usually raise the issue with the person affected by the decision to be made and take account of any views they express when deciding whether they should stand down. The person affected by the decision may opt to waive their right to object on grounds of apparent bias (e.g. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fayed [2001] Imm AR 134 at [85]).

Following correct procedure

A decision maker will frequently be required to follow a set procedure for making its decisions. This may take the form of procedural requirements set out in statute, statutory instrument, guidance (whether statutory or non-statutory) or a procedure which the decision maker has set for itself. Any such procedure will usually have been drafted with the purpose not only of guaranteeing that the decision maker takes into account all relevant considerations but also to ensure procedural fairness for those affected by the decision it is required to make.

Departure from an established prescribed procedure in itself can give rise to a successful legal challenge, by way of judicial review for example, even if no unfairness results:

“… susceptibility to judicial review under this head [procedural impropriety] covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice” (per Lord Diplock, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at 411A-B).

Examples of prescribed procedures for decision makers include:

express duty to consult
express duty to serve notice
express duty to publish agenda
express duty to seek written representations
express duty to hold oral hearing if requested
express duty to give reasons for decision
express duty to be informed of right of appeal

While it is necessary for a public body making decisions to follow any set procedure, doing so does not necessarily render its procedure fair. For example, where notice has been properly served on an affected person and they have indicated an intention to serve written representations outside the prescribed timescale, fairness may require that the body adjourn to allow them to do so even though an express rule setting out requirements of service would permit it to proceed if representations have not been received within the specified timescale.

Consultation

Central Government and other public bodies are required by law to consult before making decisions, particularly in the context of making policies or issuing Guidance.

The Cabinet Office has published a Code of Practice on written consultation which sets out the following principles which apply to consultations by central government and provide a useful guide to other consultation exercises:

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.
Failure to consult properly and adequately can lead to a policy or decision being overturned by the courts: see for example R (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 Admin which was Greenpeace’s successful challenge to the government’s consultation on the future of nuclear power, it having previously made clear that it was in favour of building additional civil nuclear plant.

The legal requirements for a proper consultation exercise are known as the “Sedley requirements”, following requirements put forward by Stephen Sedley QC in argument which were adopted by Hodgson J in R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168.

The Sedley Requirements

consultation must be made at a time when proposals are at a formative stage
sufficient reasons for the proposal must be given to allow intelligent consideration and response
adequate time must be given for response
the product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising proposals
The Cabinet Office code of practice requires that 12 weeks should be given for responses. Shorter timescales may be appropriate in limited circumstances, for example where a full consultation process has already taken place and the public body wishes to seek additional comment on amended proposals.

Within Remit

It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that a public body may only do what it is empowered or required to do by statute, whether expressly or by necessary implication.

For decision makers this means that a public body must make a decision that lies within the requirements of its governing legislation. Equally, if they have a duty to perform in determining some question or other, they must not shirk their duty. Doing otherwise would be to render their decision ultra vires and so void.

Public bodies are also governed by the requirements of other legislation, such as the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which respectively implement European Law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Further there may be duties imposed generally on public bodies, for example by sections 19B and 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Accordingly, public bodies must make their decisions in a way that complies with all such duties placed upon them by statute.

Rational and evidence based

Whether a public body has a duty or discretion to exercise in making its decision, that decision must be rational.

An irrational or unreasonable decision is one that was not reasonably open to it, as expounded by Lord Green MR in the Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

Meaning of irrationality

“Unreasonableness can include anything which can objectively be adjudged to be unreasonable. It is not confined to culpability or callous indifference. It can include, where carried to excess, sentimentality, romanticism, bigotry, wild prejudice, caprice, fatuousness or excessive lack of common sense” In Re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682, per Lord Hailsham at 699H
“a decision which does not add up” (R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin [1998] 1 PLR 1)

“a decision which no sensible authority acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided to adopt” (Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, per Lord Diplock at 1064 E-F)

Decisions makers are given a degree of latitude by the courts when challenged by way of judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness. The Courts recognise that the decision was for the public body to make, not the court, and so they are reluctant to interfere where they might disagree with a decision but it is objectively rationally made.

One way that a public body can ensure that its decisions are objectively reasonable is to ensure they are evidence-based. Regulators such as the Financial Services Authority proceed to assess risk and apply their powers according to evidence-based decision-making; this is also an approach that is being promoted by the Better Regulation Executive and the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council.

Those making decisions in the public interest should not do so capriciously or on the basis of personal feeling. They should look at the available information and evidence and reach a considered view in light of their powers and duties. It does not matter if another person looking at the same material might have reached another decision. What matters is that the decision maker can be shown, objectively, to have taken the material into account and reached its own conclusion based upon the evidence.

All relevant considerations

An aspect of reaching a rational and evidence-based decision is taking all relevant factors or considerations into account. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] AC 147, but the principle is more simply enunciated by Lightman J in R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd [1999] COD 105:

“The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration”.

This does not mean that a decision maker must consider all extraneous material, but it should have before it as much information as possible that is relevant to the decision that it is about to make. Deciding what is relevant and what is not depends on the subject matter of the decision, but examples include:

the proposal
responses to consultation or written representations received
guidance on parameters for decision
cost of decision
effects of decision on others
advice from officers
Examples of irrelevant considerations include:

the need to get business finished quickly
assumptions not based on evidence
personal experience of a different situation
dislike for the person affected by the decision or what they represent

Proper Purpose

A public body must not act in bad faith, which is akin to dishonesty (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, at 229).

It must act for a proper purpose. Those making public decisions must not have ulterior motives and must apply their minds when making decisions for the correct statutory objective (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997).

Examples of Improper Motive

exercising local authority powers for the electoral advantage of a particular political party (Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67)
land acquisition for re-sale at a profit
to protect an unborn child from the mother’s right to refuse medical intervention
delaying a process so that a challenge to it became time-barred

ECHR-Compliant

It is unlawful for any public body to act contrary to one of the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) that has been incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”)(section 6(1) HRA).

“Public bodies” for this purpose are defined in section 6(3) of the HRA as follows:

“6(3) In this section “public authority” includes:
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.”

Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act contains a list of public bodies for the purposes of that Act. This provides a useful starting point for checking whether a particular decision maker is likely to fall within the definition contained in section 6(3) HRA. However, it is only a starting point; what matters in deciding whether a decision maker falls within the definition is whether the body in question is exercising public functions.

A variety of cases have considered the question of what amounts to a functional public authority for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the HRA: see here.

A review of this case law provides a private body is likely to be held to be performing public functions under section 6(3)(b) if:

its structures and work are closely linked with the delegating of power or contracting out from a State body; or
it is exercising powers of a public nature directly assigned to it by statute; or
it is exercising coercive powers devolved from the State.
Other factors such as the following may all be taken into consideration, perhaps cumulatively, in determining whether a function has sufficiently public “flavour”:

the fact of delegation from a State body,
the fact of supervision by a State regulatory body,
public funding,
the public interest in the functions being performed, or
motivation of serving the public interest, rather than profit
The ECHR contains the following articles that have been incorporated into domestic law that may be relevant to public bodies making decisions.

Article 6 is likely to be of particular relevance to decision makers sitting in a quasi judicial capacity and holding hearings. It provides as follows:

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Breach of an ECHR right by a decision maker may render its decision not only unlawful but subject to an action for damages: see section 8(3) HRA (and R (Bernard) v Enfield Borough Council [2003] HRLR 111 for an example).

Proportionate

Public decision makers should act in a way that is proportionate. While the common law does not necessarily accept proportionality as a freestanding ground for judicial review, it is a principle embedded in both EU and ECHR law and consequently touches upon most of the decisions taken by public bodies:

“[Proportionality] is one of the fundamental principles of Community law, standing alongside such other principles as those of equal treatment and legitimate expectation. it has not so far (perhaps unfortunately) found any very promising seedbed in English domestic law. It is not anywhere vouchsafed in the EC Treaty; rather it is part of what may perhaps be called the common law, or the internal law, of the Community, having been developed by the Court of Justice as an integral part of the legal discipline applied by that court to the Community institutions in relation to their implementation of the Community legal order. When member states also act to implement Community law, or to take measures necessarily relying on exemptions from Treaty obligations provided by Community law, they too will be subject to this internal law” (R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council [1998] ICR 367, per Laws J at 384H to 385A)

“Reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 … makes it necessary that the court should ask whether what is done is compatible with Convention rights. That will often require that the question should be asked whether the principle of proportionality has been satisfied” (R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions[2001] UKHL 23, per Lord Slynn at [51]).

A decision that is proportionate, is also likely to be rational, evidence-based and reasonable (see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind[1991] 1 AC 696, per Lord Lowry at 766D-E): “reliance on proportionality is simply a way of approaching the Wednesbury formula: was the administrative act or decision so much out of proportion to the needs of the situation as to be “unreasonable” in the Wednesbury sense”.

Properly Reasoned

Procedural requirements may specify that a public body must give reasons for its decisions. It should do so in any event, not only because the common law may require it to do so, but because a well reasoned decision will inform those affected fully about the decision the body has taken. Reasoned decisions also enable those affected to consider whether to subject it to legal challenge, and on what grounds and well reasoned decisions help public bodies withstand legal challenge by explaining their thought processes.

The process of setting out written reasons for a decision also improves the decision making process by making the decision maker focus on the logic lying behind his decision (R v Brent LBC, ex parte Baruwa (1996) 28 HLR 361).

Reasons do not need to be excessively detailed, but do need to be adequate. Adequate reasons are reasons that:

deal with all the substantial points that have been raised
are sufficient for the parties to know whether the decision maker has made an error of law
set out and explain key aspects of the decision maker’s reasoning in coming to its conclusion
include all aspects of reasoning that were material to the decision made
but do not need to set out in detail all the evidence and arguments referred to the decision maker
Decision makers should record the reasons for their decisions at the time they are made. In the event of a subsequent appeal or other legal challenge, it will not usually lie open to them to elucidate, correct or add to their reasons at a later stage (see e.g. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Lillycrop (unrep 27.11.96)).

Practical Requirements

Reading all the papers

Decision makers are often busy people. The decision to hand may be only one of a handful of things that occupy their time on any given day. They may also have been presented with a substantial bundle of papers to read that are relevant to the decision to be made.

They must read all the papers that have been provided and that are relevant to the decision they are about to make. Failure to do so, out of laziness, insufficient time or a belief that they are irrelevant, would be a failure in their duty. It would likely lead to a decision that is unlawful on the basis that it fails to take account of relevant considerations.

Taking legal advice where necessary

Some procedural rules expressly require a decision maker to be accompanied by a legal adviser. By way of example, the disciplinary committees of the regulators of the professions (doctors, teachers, social workers etc) are often required by the rules governing their procedures to have in attendance a legal adviser or assessor to provide independent legal advice to the committee.

Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Medical Act 1983 makes the following provision with respect to legal assessors for the General Medical Council, which provides a common model for the appointment and role of such legal advisers.:

7. (1) For the purposes of advising:

(a) the Investigation Committee where it is considering giving a warning to a person;

(b) an Interim Orders Panel; or

(c) a Fitness to Practise Panel,

on questions of law arising in proceedings before them, there shall in all such proceedings be an assessor to the Panel who shall be appointed by the General Council and shall be-

(i) a person who has a 10 year general qualification, within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,

(ii) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 10 years’ standing, or

(iii) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least 10 years’ standing.

(2) An assessor may be appointed under this paragraph either generally or for any particular proceedings or class of proceedings.

(3) The General Council may make rules as to the functions of assessors appointed under this paragraph, including without prejudice to the generality of the powers to make such rules, the function of advising on the drafting of decisions.

(4) Rules made under this paragraph in connection with proceedings before the Investigation Committee, an Interim Orders Panel or a Fitness to Practise Panel may in particular contain such provisions as appear to the General Council expedient for:

(a) securing that where an assessor advises the Committee or a Panel on any question of law as to evidence, procedure or any other matter specified in the rules, he shall either-

(i) so advise in the presence of every party, or person representing a party, to the proceedings who appears at the proceedings, or

(ii) inform every such party or person of the advice that he has tendered, if the advice is tendered after the Committee or the Panel have begun their deliberations;

(b) securing that every such party or person shall be informed if in any case the Committee or the Panel do not accept the advice of the assessor on any such question, and may also contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to the General Council expedient.

(5) The General Council may pay to persons appointed to act as assessors such remuneration as the Council may determine.

(6) Rules under this paragraph shall not come into force until approved by order of the Privy Council.

Other decision makers are not required to have legal advice available to them. However, any decision maker who is in any doubt about their remit should take independent legal advice. This may need to be disclosed to those affected by the decision in question.

Some decision makers find it helpful for the person giving them independent legal advice to reduce the reasoning they have expressed during their deliberations to writing. This has many advantages; but the legal adviser should faithfully reproduce the decision makers reasoning and refer to information they considered relevant, rather than interposing his own thoughts or view.

Minutes

Some decision makers’ procedural rules require minutes to be taken. Others prohibit this, either expressly or as a matter of practice.

Some public decision-makers will have rules concerning the process for agreeing Minutes, but in any event having a ready formula for doing so is usually good practice.

The relevant procedure should be followed, provided that an adequate record is kept of the decision reached and the reasons it was made.

Minutes may well be covered by a public body’s publication scheme pursuant to section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and so be made available to the public and any interested parties following the decision-making process.

Transparency and FOIA

Public bodies do not operate in a vacuum. Even though many may deliberate in private, their papers may subsequently be disclosed to the public either in accordance with the relevant publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or as a result of a specific request for information under section 1 of that Act by a person affected by the decision in question.

Decision makers will wish to remember that all the material they consider and any notes they make, as well as their ultimate decision, may be disclosable in this way.

Challenge

Mechanism for challenge

Many decisions made by public bodies are subject to a specified route of review or appeal, whether that is set out in statute or not. Where a decision is not subject to such an express route of challenge, it is likely to be challenged by way of judicial review.

Ability to Review Decision

Public bodies may wish to establish mechanisms by which a decision maker can revisit and review its own decision, as where this is possible it can provide a swifter and less costly way of dealing with an application for judicial review than defending a decision through to a court hearing.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 3:30 PM
To: Jamie Fennell
Subject: Milton Keynes acting unreasonably & unlawfully.

Dear Jamie Fennell,

I have also reported Milton Keynes Council to the department for Local Government & Communities & the official complaint I have made about Milton Keynes acting unreasonably & unlawfully has been issued with the following reference number: 3418082.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Fennell, Jamie
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 3:01 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: FW: Unreasonable & unlawful action by Milton Keynes Council

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for your email received on 21 August.

Following previous adjustments made to your Council Tax Reduction, there are now credits on your council tax accounts 1108571029-4 of -£94.70 and 1108367589-7 of -£401.96. A refund for these amounts is being arranged.

Thank you for the payment of £473.54 which was received 22 August, your current council tax account is now clear. If there are any other changes to your current entitlement a new bill will be sent.

Cheques will be issued for the credit as we do not hold current bank details. Please allow 7-10 working days for these to reach you.

Regards

Jamie Fennell

Revenues and Benefits Team Leader

T: 01908 253749

E: Jamie.Fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Central Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

-----Original Message-----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 3:17 PM
To: Long, Nigel
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

Dear Nigel Long,

I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process as the
written record shows which is not fit for purpose. It also shows Milton
Keynes Council have not done their jobs correctly & they have been unwilling
to resolve the problem which they created. I have recorded a short video to
help explain what has happened & I have also asked the Pro Bono Law Unit if
they will bring a case against Milton Keynes Council on my behalf. I have
also reported Milton Keynes Council to the minister responsible for Local
Government & Communities so it can be investigated for acting unlawfully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGfB0Gom5E&t=26s

https://www.facebook.com/100000607868251/videos/1624061830957397/

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Long, Nigel
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:07 PM
To: David Mortimer
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

David,

If you feel that staff have been abusive, you need to formally raise through the Councils complaints process.

Nigel

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message-----
From: Eastman, Derek
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:04 PM
To: David Mortimer
Subject: Re: [EXT] Abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council

Hi David

Many thanks for your e-mail.

If you believe you have not been treated with respect I would advise you to contact the local authority ombudsman and raise your complaint with their office.

Regards

Derek Eastman
Councillor Newport Pagnell South
Chair MK Council Liberal Democrat Group
Chair Development Control Committee
Member Executive Scrutiny Committee
Member Joint Negotiation Committee
Member Appeals Commission

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:36 AM
To: GATES, Richard
Cc: Jamie Fennell ; Alison Wright ; Tom.Blackburne-Maze@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; advice@mkcab.org.uk
Subject: Re: Future correspondence

Dear Richard Gates,

I have followed procedure & not one person who I have asked to help me who works at Milton Keynes Council has done their job properly or been willing to correct the mistakes they have made as the written record shows. I have not made any unreasonable demands of Milton Keynes Council & I have only asked for Milton Keynes Council to correct the mistakes which it’s staff have made as it says I must do if the figure which Milton Keynes Council have used is not correct as it says I must do on the top of the councils paper work. I have also offered to come in to Milton Keynes Council on many occasions over the last 18 months with all the paperwork necessary to resolve this matter as the written record shows & Milton Keynes Council have refused to help or accept what it has been told & Milton Keynes Council have ignored me for no good or justifiable reason. I do not accept any conditions being put on me by Milton Keynes Council which are based on misinformation & I do not think it is reasonable or justifiable to refuse to help & then criticize me if I naturally become frustrated given the completely unreasonable & unjustifiable distress which I have been subjected to by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council. I am happy to come in & see you or whoever it is deemed necessary to resolve this matter & I will be replying on the councils own written record as evidence to prove what I have said is correct.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:21 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Cc: Jamie Fennell ; Alison Wright ; Tom.Blackburne-Maze@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; advice@mkcab.org.uk
Subject: FW: Future correspondence

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I note another email on this subject, a dispute that we have nothing to do with and have repeatedly advised you to follow the correct procedures yet you have consistently refused to do so. The consequences of your failure to take that advice are pretty clear to me.

Below still applies as does MKC’s restrictions.

No further correspondence will be entered into on the matter whatsoever.

Regards,

Richard Gates

Caseworker and Office Manager

Office of Mark Lancaster TD MP for Milton Keynes North

Minister of State for the Armed Forces

Suite 102

Milton Keynes Business Centre

Foxhunter Drive

Linford Wood

MK14 6GD

Tel: 01908 686830

Fax: 01908 686831

email gatesr@parliament.uk

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:47 AM
To: gatesr@parliament.uk ; counciltax@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; Jamie Fennell ; Alison Wright ; Tom.Blackburne-Maze@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; advice@mkcab.org.uk
Subject: Unreasonable & unlawful action by Milton Keynes Council

Dear Richard Gates,

Please will you kindly contact whoever is reasonable at Milton Keynes Council & ask them to answer the 3 questions which I have asked in the email below to the council tax department.

I would also like you to tell Milton Keynes Council or whoever is reasonable to stop acting against me in a unreasonable & unlawful way so that I can resolve this matter which I have not been allowed to do from day one because of the the staff at Milton Keynes Council who have not done their job correctly or been willing to correct their mistakes & they have ignored what I have told them which is not fair or reasonable treatment.

I have been trying to resolve this matter for over 18 months & it is only because Milton Keynes Council staff have ignored me & not one person has been willing to help is the reason why I was given no choice but to ask for help & make a complaint about Milton Keynes Council staff which I have complained about to Milton Keynes Council as I was told to do but as you know Milton Keynes Council has again refused to help in any way or to provide me with a resolution to the complaint I have made.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:40 AM
To: counciltax@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Summons Number 15355/10138555

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please will you kindly clarify (A) the name of the person who issued the summons which I have been sent which is dated the 18th of August 2017 & provide me with their contact details & (B) the name of the person who is responsible for their conduct at Milton Keynes Council & their contact details & (C) clarify how I can inform them of the mistake they have made in issuing this summons if they do not put their name on the summons they have issued?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:09 PM
To: Blackburne-Maze, Tom
Subject: Re: [EXT] Milton Keynes Council has destroyed my family business & left me destitute.

Dear Tom Blackburne-Maze,

I have not harassed or threatened any member of staff at Milton Keynes Council & I do not accept any conditions being put upon me by you or anyone else. What I have offered to do on many occasions over the last 18 months as the written record shows is to come in & see whoever has the responsibility at Milton Keynes Council to resolve this matter & not one person has been willing or done anything to help. Please will you kindly review the written record which shows I have been subjected to a completely unreasonable & totally unjustifiable campaign of wilful & continuous Human Rights breaches by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council which has lead to the collapse of my family business & left me destitute. Milton Keynes Council have caused me a huge amount of financial & psychological distress which needs to be properly investigated. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it is not fit for purpose & Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. I am happy to meet with you or whoever it is deemed necessary. What I require is a resolution to the complaint I have made which provides redress for the financial & psychological distress which I have suffered.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Blackburne-Maze, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:58 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [EXT] Milton Keynes Council has destroyed my family business & left me destitute.

Dear Mr Mortimer,

In accordance with the requirements placed upon you in respect of your contact with the council;

You are permitted to contact only one named member of staff at the council, who will be Jamie Fennell at present. You will be notified whenever this changes.

You may contact the Council by e-mail to jamie.fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk or by post to Jamie Fennell,1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ. Correspondence must be limited to two per fortnight and must be of no more than 250 words in length. Any communication which does not meet these limits will not be responded to. The council will respond to such letters once a fortnight.

Any such communication must not contain any insulting or derogatory comments about any member of the public, any individual member of staff, councillor or staff member of a partner agency of the council.

E-mails sent to other Milton Keynes Council staff will be deleted unread and will not be forwarded to your single point of contact for a response. It is your responsibility to make use of the single point of contact arrangement if you need to have contact with the Council.

You are not permitted to contact the council by telephone. If you attempt to contact the council by telephone, staff will be advised to direct you to your single point of contact arrangements and then to end the call.

Matters that have previously been dealt with, in that you have received a formal response, will not be actioned unless there is significant new information that might affect how the matter is viewed.

Any new matters raised by you will be treated on their merits.

Any complaint or Freedom of Information (FOI) or Data Protection Act (DPA) requests will only be considered within the parameters set out above, whereby the single point of contact will consider whether or not the complaint or request is valid and, if so, will arrange for it to be dealt with accordingly.

When attending any place of business of the Local Authority, you must not behave in an aggressive, intimidating, insulting or disrespectful manner towards any person working for or associated with the council.

Milton Keynes Council does not give you permission to electronically record any conversation or incident involving yourself and/or any member of council staff, including your named contact. You should note that should anybody have good reason to suspect that you are recording a conversation with them, whether you have previously stated you are doing so or not, they are entirely within their rights to stop the conversation immediately.

Any written correspondence from the Council remains the copyright of the Council and you are not permitted to reproduce it or publish it in any form without the express permission of the Council.

Please follow these contact requirements.

Yours sincerely

Tom Blackburne-Maze

Service Director – Public Realm

T: 01908 252213

E: Tom.blackburne-maze@milton-keynes.gov.uk

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/

Milton Keynes Council l Civic Offices l 1 Saxon Gate East l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:42 PM
To: southeast@labour.org.uk
Subject: Official complaint about Peter Marland

Dear Labour party South East,
The people who run the Labour party in Milton Keynes are not good, honest, honourable people who are acting in their constituents best interest. The Labour party in Milton Keynes under Peter Marland’s stewardship is nothing more than a bunch of unaccountable, inhumane, criminals who wilfully put the psychological & physical health of their constituents at risk of serious harm with impunity. Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes

From: Jeremy Corbyn
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:10 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: FW: I am sick & tired of being wilfully abused by the unaccountable criminals who work in Milton Keynes Council.

Dear David

Thank you for your recent email to Jeremy Corbyn. We appreciate you taking the time to contact us about this matter.

When Parliament is sitting, Members of Parliament are only able to take on casework from their own constituents. I have passed your email on the Labour Party South East Regional Office.

They can be contact on 0118 923 9403 or by email at southeast@labour.org.uk

Alternatively, if you would like to get in touch with your local councillor, Assembly Member or Member of the European Parliament, you can find their information at https://www.writetothem.com/.

Thank you once again for your email.

Kind Regards

Lee-Ann

Membership Services and Correspondence

The Labour Party

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 2:51 PM
To: tom.blackburne-maze@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Milton Keynes Council has destroyed my family business & left me destitute.

Dear Tom Blackburne-Maze,

I have not harassed or threatened any member of staff at Milton Keynes Council & I do not accept any conditions being put upon me by you or anyone else. What I have offered to do on many occasions over the last 18 months as the written record shows is to come in & see whoever has the responsibility at Milton Keynes Council to resolve this matter & not one person has been willing or done anything to help. Please will you kindly review the written record which shows I have been subjected to a completely unreasonable & totally unjustifiable campaign of wilful & continuous Human Rights breaches by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council which has lead to the collapse of my family business & left me destitute. Milton Keynes Council have caused me a huge amount of financial & psychological distress which needs to be properly investigated. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it is not fit for purpose & Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. I am happy to meet with you or whoever it is deemed necessary. What I require is a resolution to the complaint I have made which provides redress for the financial & psychological distress which I have suffered.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:21 PM
To: The Team
Subject: Re: Request for a meeting

Dear Lucy,

The Labour party in Milton Keynes does not listen to or act in the best interests of it’s constituents. Milton Keynes Council under Peter Marland's stewardship is a unlawful local authority which wilfully puts the physical & psychological health of it's constituents at serious risk of harm with impunity.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:34 PM
To: Legal Queries
Subject: Re: Official complaint about Peter Marland

Dear Governance and Legal Unit,

Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which wilfully puts the physical & psychological health of it's constituents at serious risk of harm with impunity.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Legal Queries
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:54 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Official complaint about Peter Marland

Dear David,

Thank you for your email to Jeremey Corbyn.

Unfortunately the matters you have described below are not matters for the Labour Party and should be addressed with the council directly.

I understand that you may not have received the response from the council that you were hoping for in the past, however they are the correct body to address this with.

Kind regards,

Governance and Legal Unit

From: ASC-Birmingham
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:56 AM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: FW: Tribunal reference SC043/16/00325 & National insurance number NM050618C

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for both of your emails which we received on 28/7/17. As your appeal with HMCTS has now being closed no further action will be taken by us regarding your emails and they will not be added to the appeal. However if you wish to request a reinstatement of your appeal as advised in the directions issued on 25/7/17 this must be in writing/email.

Kind regards

Deborah Fox
Customer Contact Team
Birmingham ASC

0300 123 1142

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 12:01 PM
To: sajid.javid.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: I seek justice & redress.

Dear Sajid Javid,

The Local Government Ombudsman has not acted on the information which I have brought to it’s attention & I have not been provided a resolution to the official complaint I have made to Milton Keynes council which is based on the written record of correspondence over the last 18 months. The written record shows I have been subjected to a completely unreasonable & totally unjustifiable campaign of wilful & continuous Human Rights breaches by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council which has lead to the collapse of my family business & they have left me destitute. Milton Keynes Council have caused me a huge amount of financial & psychological distress which needs to be properly investigated. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it is not fit for purpose & Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. I am happy to meet with you or whoever it is deemed necessary to make a full video statement which I will transcribe if required & send a copy to those present for them to confirm it is a accurate account of what was said. What I require is a resolution to the complaint I have made which provides redress for the financial & psychological distress which I have suffered.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:14 AM
To: mayt@parliament.uk
Subject: I seek justice & redress

Dear Theresa May,

The Local Government Ombudsman has not acted on the information which I have brought to it’s attention & I have not been provided a resolution to the official complaint I have made to Milton Keynes council which is based on the written record of correspondence over the last 18 months. The written record shows I have been subjected to a completely unreasonable & totally unjustifiable campaign of wilful & continuous Human Rights breaches by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council which has lead to the collapse of my family business & they have left me destitute. Milton Keynes Council have caused me a huge amount of financial & psychological distress which needs to be properly investigated. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it is not fit for purpose & Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. I am happy to meet with you or whoever it is deemed necessary to make a full video statement which I will transcribe if required & send a copy to those present for them to confirm it is a accurate account of what was said. What I require is a resolution to the complaint I have made which provides redress for the financial & psychological distress which I have suffered.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:44 PM
To: urmi.solanki@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: PM: The Department for Communities & Local Government has responsibility.

Dear Urmi Solanki,

Please will you kindly clarify if the Department for Communities & Local Government have received the correspondence from the Prime Ministers Direct Communications Unit regarding this matter & what action will be taken in light of the information which has been brought to it’s attention?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:54 PM
To: urmi.solanki@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Local Authority Complaint

Dear Urmi Solanki,

I have not found one person in Milton Keynes Council who is willing to help & I do not believe Milton Keynes Council employs anyone who cares about what is right or what happens to it's constituents. I really do not know what I must do in order to gain the help I need & I do not understand why I have not been given the help I have asked for.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:29 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk ; gatesr@parliament.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Paul Lewis,

I have not found one person in Milton Keynes Council who is willing to help & I do not believe Milton Keynes Council employs anyone who cares about what is right or what happens to it's constituents. I really do not know what I must do in order to gain the help I need & I do not understand why I have not been given the help I have asked for.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Despatch Box
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 12:05 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Treat official correspondence (ref: 3418082)

Please find attached response to yoru correspondence

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:56 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

25 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:46 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Future correspondence

Dear Richard Gates,

I went to see Jamie Fennell with my son in good faith after he told you he would help & he has done nothing except to laugh in my face while saying he’s just doing his job when the written record shows that is not a truthful or factual statement to make. I did ask Jamie Fennell if he was playing some kind of game. Jamie Fennell is named in the complaint which I have made about Milton Keynes Council staff wilfully & continuously breaching my Human Rights so I do not think he should be involved in any way now or in going forward.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 3:33 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Future correspondence

Dear Richard Gates,

I do not believe the accusation made by Rebecca Peck is credible or reasonable when it has been taken out of context. I have no history of ever being violent & I did offer to have the meeting videoed with Rebecca Peck (in order to protect myself from any false allegations which Rebecca Peck refused to allow). Rebecca Peck is not the only member of staff at Milton Keynes Council who I have offered to meet & for the meeting to be videoed in order for this matter to be resolved & to avoid the possibility of being accused of anything by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council but they also refused. I think Rebecca Peck has only made this claim in order to try & justifying doing nothing to help which is what the written record shows while I have been wilfully & continuously abused by members of staff at Milton Keynes Council who have breached my Human Rights while it has refused to help or provide a resolution which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. I am more than happy to meet with you or whoever it is deemed necessary to make a full video statement which I will be transcribe if required & send a copy to the persons present for them to confirm it was an accrete accurate of what was said. What I require is for you to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate this matter as I have requested him to do or for him to clarify exactly why he is unwilling to help.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:37 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Future correspondence

Mr Mortimer,

Below was sent following a meeting I had with MKC last week.

Regarding Mr David Mortimer, to confirm our discussion, Mr Mortimer’s complaint has been investigated at the final stage of the council’s complaints process and it was not upheld. Mr Mortimer was advised of his right to contact the Local Government Ombudsman which he did, the Local Government Ombudsman declined to investigate on the grounds that the council had acted appropriately and referred his case to an independent social security tribunal. Mr Mortimer subsequently withdrew his case from the tribunal as I understand he had a dispute with the tribunal service. Mr Mortimer’s contact with me both face to face and in writing included a number of threats to kill which were reported to Thames Valley Police. A single point of contact (Jamie Fennel) is in place to ensure we are able to continue to support Mr Mortimer effectively and manage the risk he presents to staff.

As you can see it contradicts what you have been saying completely. I have also been shown social media comments from you saying neither Mark nor I ever respond to you, again email exchanges we have on record contradict this entirely.

From now there will be no further correspondence on this subject and any future correspondence on other matters will be subject to scrutiny on whether it is in relationship to a Government Department or not, if it is not I will advise you immediately and terminate the case if it is we will assist if we can.

Given your history of threatening behaviour, any future correspondence will be written only. Please do not visit these premises if you do I have advised staff to contact Thames Valley Police immediately. Obviously TVP and MKC will be sent copies of this.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Gates

Caseworker and Office Manager

Office of Mark Lancaster TD MP for Milton Keynes North

Minister of State for the Armed Forces

Suite 102

Milton Keynes Business Centre

Foxhunter Drive

Linford Wood

MK14 6GD

Tel: 01908 686830

Fax: 01908 686831

email gatesr@parliament.uk

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:55 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: peck

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:56 PM
To: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: Re: Complaint Investigation

Dear Rebecca,

On your invitation I would like to correct your record of our meeting. You recorded,

"You also explained to me that if your complaint was not sorted out through the councils formal complaints procedure or through another route such as the Local Government Ombudsman you may lose your temper and you could not be held responsible for the consequences, but you would be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison....

I need to be clear that the council does not tolerate threats being made against council staff under any circumstances."

A threat is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person. According to your own record, I have not communicated any such intent.

I have, quite responsibility, drawn your attention to the adverse effects and the possible consequences of the council's maltreatment of me. There is no expressed intention to harm anybody described in your own record.

As alluded to in your record, Milton Keynes Council operates a policy of gender discrimination in its priority housing support for victims of domestic violence.

In turn, this is a failure to meet your duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse, as your statutory duty under s.11 Children Act 2004, currently being investigated by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

Thus I would be grateful if you corrected the record as follows,

"Mr Mortimer, as long standing equality activist and children's rights campaigner, drew attention to the council's policy of gender discrimination and, as a consequence, failure to meet its duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.

His, quite understandable, feelings of frustration and injustice over both the council's policy of gender discrimination and the consequent vulnerability of children to sexual abuse has left him in a volatile state.

A state that could, potentially, be provoked to the extent that a council employee may suffer a fatal injury."

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 4:57 PM
To: Kelleher, Michael ; Long, Nigel
Subject: Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

This matter needs to be thoroughly investigated now by the Local Government
Ombudsman & or the police. Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local
authority which is out of control.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelleher, Michael
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 4:46 PM
To: Long, Nigel
Cc: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Are you able to be more specific about that which you are enquiring?

It is not clear whether your email is about a benefits matter or a contract matter. As Service Director for housing and regeneration I will be unable to assist if your matter is benefits related. I can forward your email to the appropriate person if it is.

If your matter is contract related, I may be able to assist depending on the nature of the query.

Kind regards

Michael Kelleher
Service Director - Housing and Regeneration

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 11:45 AM
To: counciltax@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

Dear Milton Keynes Council,

Please do not send me any further correspondence on any issue or of any type until I have been provided with a reasonable & satisfactory resolution to the complaint which I have made or it will be produced as evidence of abuse & it will be used against you a court of law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 11:08 AM
To: counciltax@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

I have reported Milton Keynes Council the the police, the Local Government Ombudsman, The Minister responsible for Local Government & Communities, the Prime Minister, my MP & many other individuals & organisations. Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:47 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

20 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:27 AM
To: theteam@labour.org.uk
Subject: Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

The people who run the Labour party in Milton Keynes are not good, honest, honourable people who are acting in their constituents best interest. The Labour party in Milton Keynes under Peter Marland’s stewardship is nothing more than a bunch of truly deluded, inhumane, unaccountable, dangerous, ignorant, criminals who wilfully put the psychological & physical health of their constituents at risk of serious harm with impunity. Milton Keynes Council is a unlawful local authority which is out of control.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:51 AM
To: gatesr@parliament.uk ; P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Richard Gates,

I have telephoned the Local Government Ombudsman this morning to ask why Paul Lewis has not replied to any of the emails I have sent to him or messages I have left on his answering machine over the last few months & I have been told he has decided not to investigate. Paul Lewis told me he was not legally allowed to become involved until after I had been through the councils 3 stage complaints process. I have made Paul Lewis aware my complaint is about the wilful & continuous Human Rights breaches which I have been subjected to by members of staff at Milton Keynes over the last 13 months which has caused me a huge amount of financial & psychological distress. I have told the Local Government Ombudsman that I would like to appeal Paul Lewis decision or have it reviewed so this matter can be resolved & they have refused to do anything at all to help which I do not deem to be fair or reasonable. Please will you kindly ask Paul Lewis to investigate this matter (as I have asked him to do) or to clarify exactly why the Local Government Ombudsman is not willing to help.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

https://www.lancaster4mk.com/contact/

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:14 PM
To: Petchey, Martin
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

I have asked the Local Government Ombudsman to help on more than one
occasion over the last 13 months (as written record shows). The Local
Government Ombudsman has done nothing to help since he spoke to Jamie
Fennell.

-----Original Message-----
From: Petchey, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1:36 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thanks for your reply.

Your next step is, clearly, to contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

Martin Petchey
Councillor, Stantonbury Ward

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:01 AM
To: Martin.Petchey@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Official complaint

Dear Martin Petchey,

Jamie Fennell is one of the members of staff at Milton Keynes Council who
has wilfully & continuously breached my Human Rights over the last 13 months
who I have complained about & he should not be allowed to be involved in any
way. I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process
which the written record shows is not fit for purpose. Milton Keynes Council
needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman given
that it has refused to provide a resolution which cannot be deemed to be
fair or reasonable.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin.Petchey@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:18 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your email.

Your complaint is best forwarded to the council through your agreed point of
contact, Jamie Fennell.

If you feel you have exhausted the council's complaints procedure, and wish
to go further, then you should contact the Local Government Ombudsman, whose
contacts are available online. You do not need a councillor's intervention
to do this, as was once the case.

Martin Petchey
Councillor, Stantonbury Ward

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:29 PM
To: John Bint ; Peck, Rebecca
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear John Bint,

Despite the fact legal aid claim funding is available for solicitors to
bring claims against local authorities who breach their constituents Human
Rights I have not been able to find a solicitor in Milton Keynes or the
surrounding area regardless of if they accept legal aid or not who will. I
have not been able to access the justice system so far despite my best
efforts. I am now going to contact the Bar Pro Bono Unit who provide free
legal advice & representation.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bint
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:40 PM
To: David Mortimer ; Peck, Rebecca
Subject: re: [EXT] Official complaint

David,

I'm not sure who else you might have sent a similar email to, but in case it was just to me: the content is clearly intended to be a complaint about the conduct of various Council officers. As on previous occasions, it's not my place (as a Councillor in a different ward) to get involved in the subject matter. For completeness, let me just add: irrespective of the outcome of your complaint(s) against the Council, I would recommend you consider taking legal advice if you believe you have suffered financial loss as a result of actions the Council took and should not have taken.

Rebecca,

Can you please log the email below as a formal complaint by Mr Mortimer, against the Council's treatment of him personally in respect of benefits claims, and against the Council's treatment of his business, in various ways at various times. I would not like to be involved in any of the subject matter of the complaints and your investigations, but it would be good to get a periodic update about the process/progress, from time to time.

Kind regards,

John Bint (Cllr)

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 2:41 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Dear Richard Gates,

Peter Lewis is the local Government Ombudsman who has done nothing since speaking to Jamie Fennell.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 2:07 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Well then refer to the LGO for about the 50th time of advising!

No further emails will be read.

Richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 2:04 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Dear Richard Gates,

The written record shows the councils 3 stage complaints process is not fit for purpose. It also shows the council have been unwilling to help or resolve this matter themselves.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Miles, Norman
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 2:01 PM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer

I am sorry that I am not able to do as requested.

The Ombudsman will not entertain any complaint unless/until you have exhausted the full formal complaints procedure.

The Police will need to have any allegations being made by you, from you directly.

Regards

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:47 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Well our written record shows that we have despite not even being connected with the organisation you are complaining about!

Just make your complaint as we have been advising you for months!!

richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:44 PM
To: Miles, Norman
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Norman Miles,

What I require is for you to forward this matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman & or the police so it can be fully investigated to ensure those responsible for our wilful & continuous abuse can be held to account by civil & criminal law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:31 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Dear Richard Gates,

I have followed the correct procedures & nobody has been willing to help as the written record shows.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Miles, Norman
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:31 PM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer

I am sorry to hear that you have issues with the Council.

I note that you describe this matter as an “official complaint”. Accordingly, you will need to follow the appropriate procedure as set out in the Milton Keynes Council web site for dealing with complaints.

I note that you are not a resident in my ward. Notwithstanding the advice given to you above, should you wish to contact a local Councillor, please let me know and I will give you their details.

Regards

Cllr Norman Miles

Wolverton Ward

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:39 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Official complaint 14/07/2017

We have no such facility, why do you always persist in not following correct procedures?

It is not our role to do so nor is it the council role to do so. No more correspondence will be entered into.

Richard

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:22 PM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Dear Richard Gates,

What I require is for you to forward this matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman & or the police so it can be fully investigated to ensure those responsible for our wilful & continuous abuse can be held to account by civil & criminal law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:37 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

17 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:34 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Official complaint 14/07/2017

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Your point of contact at MKC has confirmed you have completed stage 3 of the complaints process, a stage 3 response from the council is the end of their complaint procedure. If you disagree with their response then you have to contact the ombudsman, it is not up to the council to do so.

You have been provided with LGO contact details, indeed in your email to me last week you confirmed you had been in touch with the LGO. Our advice is to raise it with the LGO as we have been saying for the last six months or so.

Regards,

Richard Gates

Caseworker and Office Manager

Office of Mark Lancaster TD MP for Milton Keynes North

Minister of State for the Armed Forces

Suite 102

Milton Keynes Business Centre

Foxhunter Drive

Linford Wood

MK14 6GD

Tel: 01908 686830

Fax: 01908 686831

email gatesr@parliament.uk

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:26 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

17 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:25 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

17 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:00 AM
To: Williams, Chris (Councillor)
Cc: Burke, Margaret ; Petchey, Martin ; Walker, Alex
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Chris Williams,

What I require is for you or one of your colleagues to forward this matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman & or the police so it can be fully investigated to ensure those responsible for our wilful & continuous abuse can be held to account by civil & criminal law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Williams, Chris (Councillor)
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:56 AM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Cc: Burke, Margaret ; Petchey, Martin ; Walker, Alex ; Middleton, Janette
Subject: RE: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Upon further reflection and in light of your comment that you believe this to be a ‘criminal matter’ and that your e-mail is headed ‘Official complaint’, I have decided to forward it to an appropriate Officer in MK Council to investigate and respond directly to you.

Under these circumstances, I am unable to enter into any further correspondence with you on this matter. Please note, therefore, that I have included Janette Middleton, MK Council’s Customer Service Team Leader, onto this response – either she, or one of her colleagues, will reply to you.

Regards,

Cllr Chris Williams

E-mail addresses:

chris.williams1@milton-keynes.gov.uk (MK Council)

mail@chrisw9.plus.com (home

Telephone:

01908 503717 (home)

07808 030487 (mobile)

From: Williams, Chris (Councillor)
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:37 AM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Cc: Burke, Margaret ; Petchey, Martin ; Walker, Alex
Subject: RE: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I suggest that you discuss this with your local Ward Councillors!

Regards,

Cllr Chris Williams

E-mail addresses:

chris.williams1@milton-keynes.gov.uk (MK Council)

mail@chrisw9.plus.com (home

Telephone:

01908 503717 (home)

07808 030487 (mobile)

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:25 AM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

I think this is a criminal matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman & or the police.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:19 AM
To: Williams, Chris (Councillor)
Cc: Burke, Margaret ; Petchey, Martin ; Walker, Alex
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Chris Williams,

I think this is a criminal matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman & or the police.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Williams, Chris (Councillor)
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:11 AM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Cc: Burke, Margaret ; Petchey, Martin ; Walker, Alex
Subject: RE: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded it to the three MK Councillors responsible for the Bradville area, in the hope that they may be able to help you resolve the issues that you raise.

Regards,

Cllr Chris Williams

E-mail addresses:

chris.williams1@milton-keynes.gov.uk (MK Council)

mail@chrisw9.plus.com (home

Telephone:

01908 503717 (home)

07808 030487 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:43 PM
To: Nolan, Zoe
Cc: Burke, Margaret
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Zoe Nolan,

I think this is a criminal matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated
by the Local Government Ombudsman & the police.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Nolan, Zoe
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 3:33 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Cc: Burke, Margaret
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer, thank you for taking the time to write to me. I'm sorry to hear about what has happened to you.

I have forwarded your complaint to the council so that it can be properly looked into. I have also copied in your ward councillor, Margaret Burke so she is aware of what is happening.

with best wishes,

Zoe Nolan
Lead Member for Children and Families
Labour Councillor for Loughton and Shenley ward
covering Great Holm, Loughton, Shenley Church End, Oakhill,
Medbourne, Shenley Wood and Grange Farm
Deputy Chair Parish Council Loughton and Great Holm

-----Original Message-----
From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 12:31 PM
To: Long, Nigel
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

Dear Nigel Long,

I think this is a criminal matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated
by the Local Government Ombudsman & the police.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: Long, Nigel
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 11:52 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Cc: Kelleher, Michael
Subject: Re: [EXT] Official complaint

David

I am not proposing to become involved in this matter.

I have referred it to Michael Kelleher the Director of Housing.

Nigel

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message-----
From: Marland, Peter
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:18 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EXT] Fw: Milton Keynes Council have refused to provide me with a resolution which is not fair or reasonable.

Dear Mr Mortimer

The ability to refer any issue the LGO would be for you to commence, or MKC.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards

Cllr Peter Marland

Sent from my iPhone

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:53 AM
To: GATES, Richard
Subject: Re: Milton Keynes Council has refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not think is fair or reasonable.

Dear Richard Gates,

I have not found anyone in Milton Keynes Council over the last year who has been willing to help.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

 

From: GATES, Richard
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:37 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Milton Keynes Council has refused to provide me with a resolution which I do not think is fair or reasonable.

Dear David,

Whoever you are dealing with at MKC has to provide you with details of how to complain to the LGO.

Regards,

Richard Gates

Caseworker and Office Manager

Office of Mark Lancaster TD MP for Milton Keynes North

Minister of State for the Armed Forces

Suite 102

Milton Keynes Business Centre

Foxhunter Drive

Linford Wood

MK14 6GD

Tel: 01908 686830

Fax: 01908 686831

email gatesr@parliament.uk

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:22 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

13 July 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 4:29 PM
To: jamie.fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; Sharon.Bridglalsingh@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: I appeal Sharon Bridglalsingh misinformation letter

Dear Sharon Bridglalsingh,

I am writing in reply to the letter which you sent me dated 10th of July in order to seek further clarification about the misinformation contained in it & about the complete unwillingness of Milton Keynes Council the respect it’s constituents Human Rights & or to discipline the members of staff who have violated the constituents Human Rights.

I have not made any unnecessary demands of Milton Keynes Council. I have asked for help & Milton Keynes Council have refused to help (as the written record shows). I think your letter is a disgusting example of Milton Keynes Council trying to paint it’s self as the victim when this a complete perversion & distortion of the truth.

I do not accept the demands stated in your letter & I wish to appeal it. What I require is for you to refer this matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman & for you to confirm that has been done in your reply.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:34 PM
To: Marland, Peter ; theteam@labour.org.uk
Cc: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: Please refer this matter on to the Local Government Ombudsman

Dear Peter Marland,

Please will you kindly refer the complaint I have made to Milton Keynes Council about breaching my Human Rights on to the Local Government Ombudsman given that Milton Keynes councils own written record shows it has been unwilling to help or to discipline the members of staff who have wilfully & repeatedly breached my Human Rights.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:44 AM
To: jamie.fennell@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: You have repeatedly violated my Human Rights & ignored what they have been told.

Dear Jamie Fennell,

I do not accept the letter which has been sent to me by Sharon Bridglalsingh which is dated 10th July 2017 given that it is based on misinformation. What I require is a full & further investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman of the members of staff who work for Milton Keynes Council who have repeatedly violated my Human Rights & ignored what they have been told as the written record shows. I am sick & tired of being wilfully abused by the unaccountable criminals who work in Milton Keynes Council. I am not paying a bill which has been created by breaching my Human Rights.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 4:18 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

Please will you kindly clarify what you have done to uphold my Human Rights which have been breached by Milton Keynes Council or what you intend on doing now to help?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Milton Keynes Council
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:57 AM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Acknowledgement: Information Request - Reference No FS55024265

Milton-Keynes Council

Request: FS55024265

Dear David Mortimer

Thank you for your enquiry. To confirm the details you have provided are:

Information Requested: Dear Milton Keynes Council,

Please will you kindly clarify:

(A) how many 'Section 151 Officers' Milton Keynes Council employs, and:

(B) provide their contact details.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

Information Given: Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your Report.

This has been shared with our Housing Team, who will review it and revert back to you with their response and planned actions in due course.

The Reference Number for this Request is shown in the Header of this email – it should be quoted in any future communication on this topic.

Kind Regards,

Regards

Customer Services Team
Milton Keynes Council

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:23 PM
To: pauline.mitchelmore@parliament.uk
Subject: I am sick & tired of being wilfully abused

Dear Mark Lancaster,

I am sick & tired of being wilfully abused by the unaccountable criminals who work in Milton Keynes Council. I am not paying a bill which has been created by breaching my Human Rights. I have complained about this to Milton Keynes Council who have ignored what I have said as the written record shows. I have complained about this & I have followed the councils 3 stage complaints process which the written record shows is not fit for purpose. I have also made the local Government Ombudsman & my MP aware of the harm which Milton Keynes Council has already caused. I will rely on the councils own written record as evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I have been unreasonably treated & wilfully abused by various members of staff who work at Milton Keynes Council. This matter needs to be thoroughly investigated & all of those who have wilfully breached my Human Rights need to be made accountable or it does not teach respect for them or the law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:35 PM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: I am sick & tired of being abused by the unaccountable criminals who work in Milton Keynes Council.

I am sick & tired of being wilfully abused by the unaccountable criminals who work in Milton Keynes Council. I am not paying a bill which has been created by breaching my Human Rights. I have complained about this to Milton Keynes Council who have ignored what I have said as the written record shows. I have complained about this & I have followed the councils 3 stage complaints process which the written record shows is not fit for purpose. I have also made the local Government Ombudsman & my MP aware of the harm which Milton Keynes Council has already caused. I will rely on the councils own written record as evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I have been unreasonably treated & wilfully abused by various members of staff who work at Milton Keynes Council. This matter needs to be thoroughly investigated & all of those who have wilfully breached my Human Rights need to be made accountable or it does not teach respect for them or the law.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:16 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

14 June 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 8:47 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

As the Local Government Ombudsman you have the authority to hold Milton Keynes Council to account for breaching it’s constituents Human Rights & according to Law Society funding is available. I have not been able to find any Human Rights solicitor who will bring a claim against Milton Keynes Council for breaching my Human Rights. I have called many solicitors from both inside & outside of Milton Keynes as I have been told to do by Civil Legal Advice. I have over a year of documentation which I believe shows Milton Keynes Council have not only done nothing to help me but also that it has unfairly acted against me. Milton Keynes Council are currently trying to evict me & they are demanding I pay them thousands of pounds right now or else. The action Milton Keynes Council has already taken against me has caused me a huge amount of what I believe the written record shows is completely unreasonable causing me a huge amount of emotional & economic distress to such a point that our family business of over 10 years has become economically unviable. We have a fleet of old household removal vehicles which need to be maintained until they are sold & I am already trying to find employment. A member of staff at Milton Keynes Council also called my business partner & told him to work with me or my son. Milton Keynes Council have stopped giving us jobs to do so we have a lot less money coming in & household removals in the UK have recently dropped to a 30 year low. We only have a couple of jobs booked at present which is not enough to feed us or pay our household bills & maintain the vehicles. If you do not stop Milton Keynes Council they will thrown me onto the streets to die which I do not think is reasonable or fair given that I have only tried to help save tax payers money & help the homeless. Milton Keynes Council will not allow me to help myself which is why I need yours.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:21 PM
To: Wright, Alison
Subject: Re: [EXT] Ref: PAPL

Dear Alison Wright,

I do not accept the bill which Milton Keynes Council has created given that it is not based on how much I have earned over the last 5 years. I have complained in writing to Milton Keynes Council as it says I must do on their paperwork & Milton Keynes Council have refused over the last year to correct the mistakes which they have made. I have offered to go back in to Milton Keynes Council many times over the last year with the paperwork required to resolve this matter & Milton Keynes Council have unreasonably refused to do this or help in any way to resolve this matter themselves. I do not think this is fair or reasonable treatment & I require the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate Milton Keynes Council for breaching my Human Rights. I did not ask for the HM courts & tribunals service to deal with this matter & I do not think it was right for Milton Keynes Council to refer this matter on to the HM courts & tribunals service given that it does not deal with complaints.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Wright, Alison
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 3:52 PM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [EXT] Ref: PAPL

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I am aware that your complaint regarding the council’s handling of your benefit application and your concerns about the council’s use of your company has been responded to at the final stage of the council’s complaints procedure and as advised by Rebecca Peck, the council will not be responding to you further on this matter.

We have received your cheque payment for £951.05 and would confirm that this has been cashed.

Your current full rent is £99.92 per week and you are currently in receipt of £44.51 per week Housing Benefit. This leaves your rent due at £55.41 per week.

The balance on your rent account is currently £224.07 in arrears as at todays date. This does not include any payment you may have made this week

Yours Sincerely

Alison Wright

Housing Officer (Income) – Housing & Regeneration

01908 253310 or 07950576181

alison.wright@milton-keynes.gov.uk

http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/housing-mkc

Milton Keynes Council | MK Housing | Housing and Community Group | Civic Offices | 1 Saxon Gate

East | Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:14 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: 16 005 136

01 June 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

-----Original Message-----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:43 AM
To: ASC-Birmingham
Subject: Reference number SC043/16/00325

Dear Renato Pantrini,

I do not accept the bill which Milton Keynes Council has created given that
it is not based on how much I have earned over the last 5 years. I have
complained in writing to Milton Keynes Council as it says I must do on their
paperwork & Milton Keynes Council have refused over the last year to correct
the mistakes which they have made. I have offered to go back in to Milton
Keynes Council many times over the last year with the paperwork required to
resolve this matter & Milton Keynes Council have unreasonably refused to do
this or help in any way to resolve this matter themselves. I do not think
this is fair or reasonable treatment & I require the Local Government
Ombudsman to investigate Milton Keynes Council for breaching my Human
Rights. I did not ask for the HM courts & tribunals service to deal with
this matter & I do not think it was right for Milton Keynes Council to refer
this matter on to the HM courts & tribunals service given that it does not
deal with complaints.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 2:32 PM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: Re: 16 005 136

30 May 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 12:12 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

Please will you kindly clarify why you will not take action against Milton Keynes Council for violating my Human Rights?

Yours Sincerely
David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:57 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: RE: 16 005 136

30 May 2017

Your ref:
Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your email. The Ombudsman will not be investigating your complaint for the reason provided in statement enclosed. The matter is out of jurisdiction.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lewis
Investigator
0330 4034241
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:26 PM
To: theteam@labour.org.uk
Subject: Re: Standing together

Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

Peter Marland is the Labour party leader of Milton Keynes Council who has personally refused to help me on more than one occasion to resolve the problem which Milton Keynes Council created for me over a year ago when I questioned it’s policy of criminalizing the homeless.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:18 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

Please will you kindly clarify if you are going to take action against Milton Keynes Council for breaching my Human Rights?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 1:10 PM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: 2014043

Dear Benefits department,

I do not accept the bill which you have created. I have questioned the figures used in the assessments which have been done as I must do if the figure used is not correct. However, the benefit staff who have done the assessments have not done their jobs properly by using the information which they were given & they have not been willing to resolve the problem which they created which I do not think is fair or reasonable. I have complained about these members of staff & I have been through the councils 3 stage complaints process which is not fit for purpose given that it has breached my Human Rights & it has failed to provide me with a resolution as the complainant.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 1:33 PM
To: gatesr@parliament.uk
Subject: I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it’s not fit for purpose.

Dear Richard Gates,

I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & it’s not fit for purpose.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 8:14 AM
To: Alison Wright
Subject: Ref: PAPL

Dear Alison Wright,

Please will you kindly confirm that you are aware I have complied with the process which I have been told to follow by Milton Keynes Council as the documented record shows. I have been through the Council’s 3 stage complaints process & it’s not fit for purpose given that it violates the Human Rights of those who are forced to go through it denying them a resolution even when the complaint is justified & based on the written record. This is not fair or reasonable behaviour & this matter is being investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman who will be sent a copy of this message which I now believe is a matter of public interest.

I have offered to come in & see you or whoever you want who has the authority to resolve this matter & you have ignored me which is not fair or reasonable. I do not think you should be taking any action against me in any way when I have made a complaint about being ignored which has yet to be resolved. I do not think Milton Keynes Council will ever be able to reasonably justify how we have been treated.

Our earnings have gone down as a direct result of the unjustified action which has been taken against us by Judith Johnson who stopped giving us removal jobs to do. This has had a knock on effect which has forced us to use business money in order to survive which has meant we could not afford to renew our advertising. We have paid to have our website resigned by a professional who appeared in the Milton Keynes Citizen who won awards for his work but the new website which he has done for us does not come up any higher on Google than our old website which we did so it’s not helped us. I have also paid for another professional to write a CV for me which is attached & I have registered with a job agency. I have offered to work for Milton Keynes Council but it seems to me that some of the people who work there would rather I was dead & they do not seem to care what they have to do or not in order to achieve it.

Despite having extremely very limited resources I have sent you a cheque for the full amount which you have requested which I have done so under duress. I do not think Milton Keynes Council should cash it until this matter has been investigated in the public interest & resolved in order to maintain public confidence.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 11:34 AM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: Milton Keynes Council needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Dear Benefits Service,

Milton Keynes Council is a unaccountable corporation which is not run in the public’s best interest which violates the Human Rights of it’s constituents safe in the knowledge that nobody with the authority to do so will hold them to account. The people involved in running Milton Keynes Council are guilty of acting in a criminal way which should to be thoroughly investigated in order to maintain public confidence.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:49 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: RE: Ref: 16 005 136

13 April 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 5:07 PM
To: Peter Smyth ; Peter Marland
Subject: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction claim ref 2014043.

Dear Peter Smyth,

I would like another senior officer to look at my claim & to respect my Human Rights.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 10:52 AM
To: Peter Smyth
Subject: 2014043

Dear Peter Smyth,

I do not accept the assessment which you have done which is dated the 4th of April 2017 because you have not used the right information which you have been given.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: noreply@lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:42 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Re your email: 16 005 136

04 April 2017

Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Thank you for your email which has been placed on the complaint record, and brought to the attention of LGO staff currently involved in handling this case. Please do not reply to this acknowledgement as emails to this address are not monitored.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:19 PM
To: Smyth, Peter
Subject: Re: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction claim ref 2014043.

Dear Peter Smyth,

What I require is for the benefit department to base the assessment on our end of year earnings over the last 5 years & to provide a rent rebate for each of the years which are applicable over that time period given that my earnings decreased. I do not think is reasonable or fair of you or anyone else in the benefit department to take any action against me when I have repeatedly offered to come in with the documentation required to resolve this matter many times over the last year. I would like another senior officer to look at my claim & to respect my Human Rights. I would like to resolve this matter before I have to decide on what is the best course of action going forward with regard to what figures are used for this year.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Smyth, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 12:33 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction claim ref 2014043.

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I am in receipt of your e-mail dated 27 March 2017 in which you have advised me that you disagree with the assessments I made on 15 March 2017.

The normal procedure now would be for another Senior officer to look at your claim, however before this can be done, please can you confirm exactly what you disagree with about the assessments and why.

I have contacted HM Courts and Tribunals Service regarding your appeal. They confirmed they have now advised the district judge handling the appeal that you no longer wish to proceed with it and they are awaiting further instructions from the judge.

Further to my e-mail to you dated 14 March 2017 in which I advised you about the revision of your earnings from self employment and how the revised amounts had been worked out I also requested your latest trading profit and loss accounts to enable us to review your self employed earnings going forward. A formal letter has been issued today requesting this information and you will have one calendar month to provide the accounts or your claim will be suspended. If you are having difficulty in providing the accounts and require more time please let me know.

Regards,

Peter Smyth

Senior Assessment Officer (Appeals)

Tel: +44 01908 253019

E mail: peter.smyth@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council: Civic Offices | 1 Saxon Gate East | Milton Keynes | MK9 3EJ

From: Britnell, Leigha
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:48 AM
To: 'david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk'
Subject: RE: Thank you. I will see you on Friday 13th January at 10 am.

Hi David,

I have cut and pasted the notes below. Apologies for the delay but I was unexpectedly away from the office.

Thanks

Leigha

Audit Meeting Notes

13th January 2017

Mr David Mortimer

Miss Samantha Collins

DM’s concerns are that for no good reason MKC stopped giving his company work and this was reviewed by RP as part of the Council’s complaints process. DM stated that RP has informed him that she will not investigate because the matter is with the Local Government Ombudsman. DM believes not one person is sorting it.

DM stated that over the last year he has been back and forth to the Council.

DM has sent his complaint to the ombudsman and DM has spoken to KW (Cllr) who DM stated has said it could be a mistake. DM continued that he could accept this if it was not the same mistake several times.

DM stated that his company does household removals and up until last year did work for MKC and when DM brought info to MKC about its homeless policy the work dried up. DM stated that he is a bit of a campaigner and he had research from Northampton re Housing 1st Approach. The research states that it is cheaper to house the homeless than keep them on the street. DM showed them the research about wasting taxpayer’s money and not helping the homeless. Now DM believes they are not giving his company work and now continuously reassess his families CT and Housing accounts. DM stated that they have been reassessed 25 times for their claim.

DM continued that he has run his business for 25 years with no problem and he believed that once he brought the information to the attention of the Council then that is when all the problems started. DM thought they would be ‘all ears’ regarding the research.

DM stated that the Council then reassessed his Council Tax and Benefit claim using his accounts but did not use the end of year figure that was shown them. Then DM wrote to MN (in benefits). DM wrote back to her twice and she did not reply. At the time DM was still providing quotations for removals work to MKC customers for months. DM believed it was a complete waste of time as the company was not getting jobs anymore. DM stated that then he went to see a man called Mr K re some removals work. DM believed that Mr K was told by MKC to get a job quote from them but said that it is the 3rd quote he needed but the Council has already allocated the work. DM stated that JJ was the lady who dealt with this and DM believes that it is the Council paying for the work. When Mr K said it to DM he thought it is not correct. DM thought are they paying less, have MKC they changed their policy. When DM asked JJ she sent an e-mail saying someone has been overcharging the customers. DM suggested she should remove them from the list. It did seem a very odd e-mail and then their work stopped.

DM believes that the Council carried on giving people the details of DM’s company to get quotes but after about June 2016 it was obvious to DM they were getting no work.

LB suggested they could be new company undercutting and that a lot of removal companies seem to have come into existence on the internet. DM stated he could not say himself but he knows nothing changed and his company never had any complaint ever and then it all seems a bit odd all work stopped.

DM stated that he was told to go through the complaints process re the benefits claim. DM stated that he believes there is a problem here and it seems to him to be in the department. DM stated that they have been reassessing him now for the previous 6 years. After DM tried to get it correct for this year he believes that they decided to investigate the last 6 years. DM stated that the only reason the Council has given is that new information was brought to their attention. DM continued that last year he made a website error and late one night dropped and dragged a file and put it on his removals website and what you could see on the website was a page with things missing (son usually does website). PS (benefits) then told Justine ? he had been looking at their website for 2 months. He also said it wasn’t his job as a public servant to tell DM if he had made a mistake. The Council have sent out 25 assessments and they are all different. DM went through the complaints service.

DM stated that the Ombudsman is saying they won’t do anything as the Council is saying they will go to an independent Social Security tribunal. DM continues that this does not offer a solution to being ignored. He would also have to consent to accept whatever figure they come up with and he did not believe the process would be independent.

DM showed LB and PS his bag of letters and receipts. He stated that all his receipts go to his accountant, so the figure is independent. He believes that MKC benefits department then went back retrospectively using legislation 11 years old to charge DM £5000 and he also understands that they ignored last year figures and then decided to go back 5 years. They said it is due to DM’s website error.

DM really does not believe the panel will be independent.

DM continued that from day one he believes no-one has used the figure from the accountant and he just wants to be treated same as everyone else. DM continued that they have not explained why they have not used the figures he provided. DM writes back and asks where they got the figures from but cannot get the answers. DM pays a properly qualified chartered accountant and not a cowboy company. DM asked; if the tax man accepts his figures so why not the Council.

DM subsequently did give the Council what he believes to be sufficient evidence of how many hits the website gets. DM understands that what the Council are saying is that the website was not ‘Mortimer’s removals’ and that they were going to take away the advertising costs shown in his accounts. DM has told the Council it was a mistake with his website and no one said anything for 2 months. DM stated that the minute DM was told he readjusted the website in seconds and it was resolved. DM continued that the Council created a figure of about £5k and said he could not claim for his advertising until he proves it was only 2 months. DM continued that he believes he can prove he paid for the website and it is all in the accounts. DM contacted the website people and he pulled out the statistical data of how many hits and printed the records and DM saw that there was a big drop in the 2 months and showed when the error was made. DM understands that benefits said they could not accept that info. DM does not know what else he can do to prove it. DM thinks that the Benefits team have never been specific in things that DM cannot claim for. Some receipts the Council think are not for the sole use of the business. DM said that every receipt he has provided is for the business. The taxman and accountant accept them as for sole use of the business.

DM understands that RP (Customer Services) was supposed to ask why they would not use the end of year figures. After DM had spoken to her he understood that she had agreed a whole list of questions she would get answers for, this list was published on his website. However, DM stated that RP subsequently wrote and said she could not look at it whilst it was going to an independent tribunal.

DM stated he went through the complaints – JF was asked to look at it and DM believes he did nothing. DM stated that JF said he would split the complaint into two. One part is the money side and the second was the abuse of being ignored. DM asked why won’t they sort it. DM asked how can they do all these assessments to abuse DM.

DM believes there is no accountability and they will not accept responsibility. They just send DM to the next process.

DM stated… also, the Council have been sending bailiffs for the outstanding bill. They had to borrow money to pay the bailiffs as they were seeking possession when it is not even resolved. DM continued that they have tried to stay calm for last year to try and resolve it. It feels to DM they are trying to provoke a reaction from him.

DM stated that no one has ever sat down and tried to explain how they assessed the claims. DM stated that he just made a mistake on the website.

DM understood that RP had a list of questions and said she would get answers. DM stated that he did get a letter from RP stating she could not pursue the complaint further because the Ombudsman has got involved. In meantime DM believes the Council are acting against them before this decision is made.

DM stated that they keep getting more assessments through the post that DM cannot work out.

On 20th June DM came into the Council and said his son had moved back in and it was allocated to a person to assess the claim. At the time DM worked out that his earnings had dropped to circa £3k. DM understands that the Council recalculated these earnings at £250 each per week and said they were not entitled to anything.

DM stated that whatever their issue is with DM they should not then be doing everything else to cause distress to them.

DM stated that to resolve matters they need to go back over the 5 years and use the figures that he provided and that he believes are correct. DM stated that the reassessment was also done under cloak and dagger. DM also stated that his partner was also told by someone in the department to go and get a job somewhere else and not be self-employed.

DM reiterated that he paid for a proper accountant who is chartered to try and prevent these problems. He believes that the benefits department will just not use the information that has been given.

DM continued that it has been very stressful on DM and he has tried to stay calm. DM said that it is not nice and it is not fair and reasonable to do what the Council is doing. DM is barely surviving – they could not afford Christmas. The family had to go to the food bank for Christmas. DM believes that the Council have tried to destroy the business and DM said anyone would feel angry.

DM reported that the Citizens advice bureau has also written to benefits to try and resolve this matter and he understands they have stated to the benefits team that they have not been specific in their reply and so DM cannot resolve this.

DM stated that his family has to drive hundreds of miles today to do a job in the bad weather just to try and get money in to survive. DM doesn’t know if he will get a call some point because they are stuck somewhere.

LB informed DM that it is unlikely they will be authorised to look into this matter because it has been looked at internally before and is going to an independent judicator. LB stated that she is likely to be instructed the same by her management that this needs to await the outcome of that process.

LB thanks DM for coming and DM thanked PS and LB for listening

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:21 PM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: 2014043

Dear Benefits department,

I do not accept the assessments which Peter Smyth did the 15th of March 2017 because he has not used the right information. I am more than happy to come in to the council with all of the paperwork required to sort this out but you will need to allow at least 2 hours to go through the last 5 years of paperwork. Please let me know when I can come in & who I need to see?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Britnell, Leigha
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 10:01 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: RE: Clarification about the remit

Apologies David,

I have been away from work on a serious personal matter. I have flagged this e-mail to look at on Monday.

Mind regards,

Leigha

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:28 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: 16 005 136

Dear Peter Lewis,

I did not ask for or want this matter to be dealt with by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Milton Keynes Council referred this matter to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service which set a remit which did not provide me with a resolution as the complainant. There are a few members of staff at Milton Keynes Council who were named by Rebecca Peck when she conducted stage 3 of Milton Keynes Councils complaints procedure who have not treated me in a fair & or reasonable way which has breached my Human Rights which should be addressed or I fear they will see it as a green light to continue breaching the Human Rights of their constituents safe in the knowledge that no one with the authority to hold them to account will do so regardless of the cost. Milton Keynes Council created a problem for me which the written record shows they have been unwilling to resolve. I believe the reason why Milton Keynes Council has acted against me in this way is because I questioned Milton Keynes Council homelessness policy of criminalizing the homeless. This was after the “At What Cost” research on homelessness was brought to my attention by some of the specialists who work in that sector who I have been writing to over the last couple of years which says it costs tax payers 3 times as much to criminalize the homeless as it does to provide them with housing. I have also made Milton Keynes Council aware the housing first approach has proven to be cost effective. I brought this information to Milton Keynes Councils attention in good faith & without prejudice in the public interest in order to save tax payers money & to help the homeless.

The most comprehensive evaluation of housing related support services estimated that £1.6 billion investment generated net savings of £3.4 billion to public spending. Preventing homelessness is far more cost effective than dealing with it once it has occurred. The minimum cost saving of preventing someone’s homelessness compared to accepting a homelessness duty is between £1,300 and £7,700. If somebody ends up street homeless the costs are even greater: it is estimated that one person sleeping rough costs between £8,605 and £35,000 a year in crime, emergency health and social care services alone.
National research demonstrates that homelessness & rough sleeping impacts significantly upon a person’s health & puts greater demands upon the health service, with 41% of homeless people attending Accident & Emergency Departments, 31% being admitted to hospital, 28% using an ambulance and 82% having visited a GP at least once within a 12 month period.

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/itcostslesstohousethehomeless4thmarch2016.htm

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:17 PM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: RE: Ref: 16 005 136

21 March 2017

Your ref:
Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Please find attached a letter about this complaint.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lewis
Investigator
0330 4034241
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:54 AM
To: p.lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Ref: 16 005 136

Dear Paul Lewis,

I have been through Milton Keynes Councils 3 stage complaints process & Milton Keynes council has refused to help or resolve this matter. Milton Keynes Council referred this matter on to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service & it has also mislead me in to thinking the HM Courts and Tribunals Service would hear my complaint when it does not deal with complaints about local authorities. I have since written to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to withdraw my consent from it dealing this this matter. What I require is for the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate my complaint & to provide me with a resolution so this matter can be resolved.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Marland, Peter
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:16 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk' ; ASC-Birmingham
Cc: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: RE: I withdraw my consent from the HM Courts and Tribunals Service dealing with this matter.

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for your email.

I have nothing further to add to previous correspondence on the matter.

Kind Regards

Cllr Peter Marland

Leader

Milton Keynes Council

& Wolverton ward member

Tw: @pete_marland

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:14 PM
To: Marland, Peter ; ASC-Birmingham
Cc: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: I withdraw my consent from the HM Courts and Tribunals Service dealing with this matter.

Dear Peter Marland,

Please will you kindly clarify why Milton Keynes Council referred the complaint which I made on to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service if it does not deal with complaints & if the correct course of action to provide the complainant with a resolution would be for the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate?

What I require is a resolution & to be treated fairly. Milton Keynes Council has breached my Human Rights & I withdraw my consent from the HM Courts and Tribunals Service dealing with this matter.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

From: Marland, Peter
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:16 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Cc: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: RE: Clarification about the remit set by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Mortimer

Thank you for your email.

As I have previously stated the compliant has been dealt with through all the stages of the MK Council process and there is nothing more I can add to that matter.

I am unable to comment on how an external service such as a Tribunal or LGO might operate and therefore can only suggest you contact those organisations for further clarification on their decisions.

Unless you have any further issues you would like to raise, I believe that the matter has reached a conclusion in respect of Milton Keynes Council. I am sorry that you do not feel you have received the outcome you would have wished, however I do not believe there is anything further I can add to the correspondence.

Kind Regards

Cllr Peter Marland

Leader

Milton Keynes Council

& Wolverton ward member

Tw: @pete_marland

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:03 PM
To: Marland, Peter
Subject: Re: Clarification about the remit set by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear Peter Marland,

I have not been treated in a fair & or reasonable way by some of the members of staff at Milton Keynes council & you have refused to help me to resolve this matter reasonably on more than one occasion. I do not think it’s reasonable or acceptable for you as the Labour party leader of Milton Keynes Council to refuse to help me when the written record shows members of staff have not done their jobs properly which was all by mistake or it was not. Kevin Wilson said it might all be a mistake but I do not think the Local Government Ombudsman & or anyone else who looks at the written record will accept Milton Keynes Council has made so many mistakes not when it’s members of staff were given the information which they requested but they decided did not to use or accept it.

I have been through Milton Keynes Council’s 3 stage complaints process & it has failed to reasonably provide me with a resolution to resolve this matter. The Local Government Ombudsman agrees with me that Milton Keynes Council should of resolved this matter themselves instead of unreasonably allowing others to become involved given the additional cost to tax payers in these times of austerity.

Peter Smyth told the HM Courts & Tribunals Service appeal hearing which took place on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes which was heard by District Judge E C May that the reason why we were all there was because I had requested it. I was expecting my complaint to be heard at that time but the remit which was set for the hearing by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service did not include it & provide the complainant with a resolution. I have since written to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to seek further clarification about the remit which they set for the hearing & I am waiting to be told when the next appeal hearing will be by the court. I think this matter now needs to be urgently investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman & maybe other agencies to ensure all of those who have abused us are held to account.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 11:06 AM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: 2014043

Dear Benefits department,

I do not accept the assessment which has been done by Peter Smyth which is dated 15th March 2017 because he has not used the right information in the calculations which he has done again. This is despite the fact he has been given the right information on more than one occasion by myself & the Milton Keynes Citizens advice bureau.

Please will you kindly clarify how Peter Smyth can reasonably claim to be impartial when he has been named by Rebecca Peck as being one of the members of staff who I have complained about. This was when Rebecca Peck conducted what I was told was Milton Keynes Council’s stage 3 investigation which has left this matter unresolved. The Local Government Ombudsman has become involved & I think they might agree with me that Peter Smyth is not impartial & the bill which he has created with his view on how the legislation should be applied is not reasonable or economically sound given that everyone knows & accepts vehicles depreciate in value. Using the legislation the way Peter Smyth has retrospectively violates our Human Rights & the bill which he has created puts us all at serious risk of further financial hardship & or making us all homeless which puts all of our psychological & physical wellbeing at serious risk of future harm which is unreasonable & will be appealed.

I am still waiting for Milton Keynes Council to provide me with a resolution to the complaint I have made. I have been through the councils 3 stage complaints process & it has achieved nothing. The complaint I made has now been referred on to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service. I attended the first HM Courts and Tribunals Service appeal hearing on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes which was heard by District Judge E C May. I was expecting my complaint to be heard at that time but the remit which was set for the hearing by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service did not include it & does not provide the complainant with a resolution. I have since written to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to seek further clarification about the remit which they set for the hearing & I am waiting to be told when the next appeal hearing will be by the court.

Our earnings have gone down since last year which was in part caused by Judith Johnson not allocating removal jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council fairly as she is supposed to do. Last year we provided a lot of quotations to Milton Keynes Council customers & without saying anything to us Judith Johnson just stopped giving us jobs to do. This is despite the fact we have done jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council for many years & without any complaints being made.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Marland, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:13 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: RE: Clarification about the remit set by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I understand that you have approached the Local Government Ombudsman with your concerns and that they have advised you that they will not investigate as you have appealed to a tribunal in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a). I am not able to comment on any decision taken by the Tribunal as the body is independent of Milton Keynes Council.

As advised by Rebecca Peck in her letter of 17th October 2016, your complaint has been considered at the final stage of the council’s complaints procedure and the council will not be giving further consideration to your complaint.

If you have concerns relating to the courts and tribunal service you are entitled to make a complaint or comments to them directly. Further information about this is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure

Kind Regards

Cllr Peter Marland

Leader

Milton Keynes Council

& Wolverton ward member

Tw: @pete_marland

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:37 PM
To: Peter Smyth
Subject: Re: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction appeal - ref 2014043.

Dear Peter Smyth,

Please will you kindly clarify how you can reasonably claim to be impartial when you have been named by Rebecca Peck as being one of the members of staff who I have complained about. This was when Rebecca Peck conducted what I was told was Milton Keynes Council’s stage 3 investigation which has left this matter unresolved. The Local Government Ombudsman has become involved & I think they might agree with me that you are not impartial & the bill which you have created with your view on how the legislation should be applied is not reasonable or economically sound when everyone knows & accepts vehicles depreciate in value & it is not unreasonable for us to claim for it. Using the legislation the way you have retrospectively violates our Human Rights & the bill which you have created puts us all at serious risk of further financial hardship & or making us all homeless which puts all of our psychological & physical wellbeing at serious risk of future harm which is unacceptable & will be appealed.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:00 PM
To: Smyth, Peter
Subject: Re: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction appeal - ref 2014043.

Dear Peter Smyth,

Our earnings have gone down since last year which was in part caused by Judith Johnson not allocating removal jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council fairly as she is supposed to do. Last year we provided a lot of quotations to Milton Keynes Council customers & without saying anything to us Judith Johnson just stopped giving us jobs to do. This is despite the fact we have done jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council for many years & without any complaints being made.

I am still waiting for Milton Keynes Council to provide me with a resolution to the complaint I have made. I have been through the councils 3 stage complaints process & it has achieved nothing. The complaint I made has now been referred on to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service as you know. I attended the first HM Courts and Tribunals Service appeal hearing on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes which was heard by District Judge E C May. I was expecting my complaint to be heard at that time but the remit which was set for the hearing by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service did not include it & does not provide the complainant with a resolution. I have since written to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to seek further clarification about the remit which they set for the hearing & I am waiting to be told when the next appeal hearing will be by the court.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Smyth, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:49 PM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction appeal - ref 2014043.

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Further to your attendance at the Tribunal Hearing in Milton Keynes on 16 February 2017 and subsequent visit to the Civic Offices where you provided me with your company bank statements from September 2011, I have now reviewed the Local Authority’s decisions of 20 June 2016, 1 July 2016 and 9 July 2016 based on the new evidence you have provided.

I am now satisfied that the amounts on your trading profit and loss accounts from September 2011 for advertising and credit cards are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business and I have revised your self employed earnings from 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2015 to take these expenses into account.

I am however unable to treat any amounts declared in respect of depreciation as allowable expenses and this is because Regulation 38, paragraph (5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (quoted below) does not permit me to do this. Regulation 38, paragraphs (4) and (5) state: -

‘(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) the net profit of the employment shall be calculated by taking into account the earnings of the employment over the assessment period less, subject to paragraphs (5) to (7), any expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in that period for the purposes of the employment.

(5) Subject to paragraph (6), no deduction shall be made under paragraph (3)(a) or (4), in respect of—

(a) any capital expenditure;

(b) the depreciation of any capital asset;

(c) any sum employed or intended to be employed in the setting up or expansion of the employment;

(d) any loss incurred before the beginning of the assessment period;

(e) the repayment of capital on any loan taken out for the purposes of the employment;

(f) any expenses incurred in providing business entertainment; and

(g) any debts, except bad debts proved to be such, but this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any expenses incurred in the recovery of a debt.’

The amendments to your earnings have resulted in you being underpaid Housing Benefit amounting to £3993.09 from 8 October 2012 to 12 March 2017. The sum of £2231.20 will be used to offset against outstanding overpayments for the period 8 October 2012 to 24 May 2015, the remaining £1761.89 will be posted to your rent account on Monday 20 March 2017.

You have also been underpaid Council Tax Reduction amounting to £1386.97 covering the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2018. The underpayment of Council Tax Reduction has been divided and posted to your Council Tax accounts spanning the period from 1 April 2014 to 18 March 2018. This will result in you receiving a revised bill shortly.

I have attached the revised calculations for your self employed earnings for your information. These show that taking the advertising costs and credit card processing costs into account as allowable expenses has resulted in your net weekly income from self employment reducing: -

From £278.99 to £242.42 from 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2012;

From £395.05 to £346.30 from 1 April 2012 to 30 September 2012;

From £240.66 to £175.31 from 1 October 2012 to 31 March 2013;

From £184.85 to £141.77 from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014; and

From £115.45 to £81.63 from 1 April 2014.

I have also updated Daniel’s income to take into account the advertising and credit card processing costs as allowable expenses for the periods from 1 September 2011 to 31 May 2012, 30 June 2013 to 5 January 2015 and from 6 June 2016 to date where my records show him to have been a member of your household.

I received your e-mail dated 6 March 2017 in which you advised me that you earned £5012.00 for the year ending 31 March 2016. Please could you forward me a copy of your accounts for the period ending 31 March 2016 by e-mail to enable me to review your entitlement going forward by 28 March 2017.

Regards,

Peter Smyth

Senior Assessment Officer (Appeals)

Tel: +44 01908 253019

E mail: peter.smyth@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Visit us online at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council: Civic Offices | 1 Saxon Gate East | Milton Keynes | MK9 3EJ

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 2:55 PM
To: benefits@milton-keynes.gov.uk
Subject: 2014043

Dear Benefits department,

Our earnings have gone down since last year which was in part caused by Judith Johnson not allocating removal jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council fairly as she is supposed to do. Last year we provided a lot of quotations to Milton Keynes Council customers & without saying anything to us Judith Johnson just stopped giving us jobs to do. This is despite the fact we have done jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council for many years & without any complaints being made.

I am still waiting for Milton Keynes Council to provide me with a resolution to the complaint I have made. I have been through the councils 3 stage complaints process & it has achieved nothing. I am surprised that none of your colleagues have told you the complaint I have made has now been referred on to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service. I attended the first HM Courts and Tribunals Service appeal hearing on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes which was heard by District Judge E C May. I was expecting my complaint to be heard at that time but the remit which was set for the hearing by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service did not include it & does not provide the complainant with a resolution. I have since written to the HM Courts and Tribunals Service to seek further clarification about the remit which they set for the hearing & I am waiting to be told when the next appeal hearing will be by the court.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:44 AM
To: ASC-Birmingham
Subject: Re: Clarification about the remit

Dear Anita Prince,

My full national insurance number is NM050618C & tribunal reference
SC043/16/00325. Please will you kindly clarify how I can obtain a resolution
to the complaint I have made from Milton Keynes Council if the HM Courts and
Tribunals Service exclude it from the remit of the appeal hearing which took
place on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton
Keynes & if it can be reasonably considered to be fair & impartial if the
remit does not provide the complainant with a resolution.

Your Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

-----Original Message-----
From: ASC-Birmingham
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:04 AM
To: 'david@mortimers-removals.co.uk'
Subject: RE: Clarification about the remit


Good Morning Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your recent email below

Please can you supply your full national insurance number and full tribunal reference number in order for this office to be able to make progress with your request

Many thanks for your help with this.

Regards Anita Prince

Customer Contact Cover Clerk
I am not authorised to bind Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals in any way via electronic means.

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 9:33 AM
To: ASC-Birmingham
Subject: Clarification about the remit

Dear Elizabeth Crosti,

Please will you kindly clarify how I can obtain a resolution to the complaint I have made from Milton Keynes Council if the HM Courts and Tribunals Service exclude it from the remit of the appeal hearing which took place on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes & if it can be reasonably considered to be fair & impartial if the remit does not provide the complainant with a resolution.

Your Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 9:29 AM
To: Peter Marland
Subject: Clarification about the remit set by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Dear Peter Marland,

Please will you kindly clarify how I can obtain a resolution to the complaint I have made from Milton Keynes Council if the HM Courts and Tribunals Service exclude it from the remit of the appeal hearing which took place on the 16/02/2017 at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone in Milton Keynes & if it can be reasonably considered to be fair & impartial if the remit does not provide the complainant with a resolution.

Your Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:42 AM
To: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: Re: Please show mercy to my son, Justin his wife & their children even if you have none for me.

Dear Rebecca Beck,

I have already contacted a couple of people in Milton Keynes Council about this but I do not know if they will take anyone notice of what I have said & I don’t think Milton Keynes Council will help us in any way or accept any responsibility for the harm going through what is supposed to be a complaint process over the last 12 months has had which has seen Milton Keynes Council members of staff consistently & wilfully undermind me by ignoring what I have said as the written records shows which has had a knock on effect on me, Justin, my son & business to the point where I do not think it is even realistic or reasonable to expect us to be able to financially or emotionally survive going through the whole of your process which has wilfully destroyed peoples faith in me which I think will end up making us all homeless & totally dependent on the council & at risk of freezing to death on the streets.

I am sure all the people who work in Milton Keynes Council could afford to have a nice Christmas which sadly we could not afford to have at all. My son went to his mums & Justin went to the food bank & seeing how this has effected them both in such a bad way for so long without anyone being willing to help has had a truly dreadful effect on the relationships I had with both of them & now even with the best will in the whole I do not think our lives will ever be the same again. I fear for the immediate future with so little work around at this time of year & I do not think I can cope with any more deeply disturbing calls from Justin. Sadly I have been forced to tell both Justin & my son that I cannot help them anymore in any way even though we are all still clinging on to the hope that the phone will rings so we can afford to eat. We only have one job booked at this time & not many calls are coming in so I do not think it will be long before Justin will be screaming at me down the phone to help him & his children when all I can do is watch them suffer which is sickening & sole destroying for me.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

13 Stanton Avenue

Bradville

Milton Keynes

MK13 7AR

From: Peck, Rebecca
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 8:41 PM
To: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Please show mercy to my son, Justin his wife & their children even if you have none for me.

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your e-mail. In your e-mail you refer to the council, ‘issuing notices against you seeking possession’ please can you let me have some more information and the details of any notices that you have received to allow me to follow up with the appropriate colleagues and understand any support that may be available to you.

As you are aware, I am not able to share any information with you in relation to your business partner due to data protection, however if he or his wife has concerns they are entitled to raise them through the council’s complaints process.

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Peck

Head of Customer Service

T: 01908 253930
E: Rebecca.Peck@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Customer Service l Civic Offices l Saxon Gate l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 7:34 PM
To: Peck, Rebecca ; Douglas McCall (MKC Cllr)
Subject: Please show mercy to my son, Justin his wife & their children even if you have none for me.

Dear Rebecca Peck,

2016 has been a truly frightful year for us all & it seems there is no change on behalf of Milton Keynes Council regardless of the facts of this matter which Kevin Wilson said might be a mistake. Maybe a mistake has been made when one of Milton Keynes Council members of staff called my business partner & told him he needs to work for someone else. I have only ever tried to help by bringing information which should be considered by the council to it’s attention & ask for help when my last relationship came to a end. It was around about that time that I made the website error which has been stated as the good reason for this investigation & regardless of the fact our company has done jobs on behalf of Milton Keynes Council for years up until recently & without their being a problem which the council has not been able to correct.

My son & my business partner both think the reason why the council have acted against us all in such a unusual manor in issuing notices seeking possession when no date has even been set for the tribunal does not seem to be reasonable. It seems like Milton Keynes Council actually want to destroy our family business & throw us all out on the streets to freeze to death rather than being willing to actually help us to stop that from happening when asked & I am sorry if I have said or done anything which you have deemed to be alarming or distressing in any way as that was never my intention & now your unwillingness to help us when I have asked & tried to access the same help & support which I think anyone else would reasonably expect to receive is truly hard for me to fathom to be honest. I have already had what many people would consider to be a shit life & I really do not want life to be anymore difficult than it will be when eyesight fails. Please show mercy to my son, Justin his wife & their children even if you have none for me & I must be thrown on the streets to die.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: Peck, Rebecca
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 4:23 PM
To: mailto:david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Complaint

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Councillor Douglas McCall has contacted me regarding the concerns you shared with him about the council’s assessment of your benefit.

I am writing to confirm that as advised in my letter of 17th October, this has now been considered at the final stage of the council’s complaints procedure and the council will not be giving further consideration to your complaint.

I understand that the independent tribunal are still due to consider your appeal. Following the outcome of the appeal the council will consider any changes that may be required to your rent and council tax account.

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Peck

Head of Customer Service

T: 01908 253930
E: Rebecca.Peck@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Customer Service l Civic Offices l Saxon Gate l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:03 PM
To: peter.marland@milton-keynes.gov.uk ; P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 16005136

Dear Peter Marland,

I am truly shocked with you being a Labour party leader when you are not interested in or willing to correct mistakes made by your colleagues regardless of the cost to your constituents & the tax payers in these times of austerity.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

http://www.mklabour.org.uk/peter_marland

From: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:15 PM
To: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Subject: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 16005136

Dear Peter Lewis,

I did not ask for & I do not consent to Milton Keynes Council referring this matter on to a social security appeal tribunal. I see no good reason why Milton Keynes Council should not save tax payers money in these times of austerity by resolving this matter themselves. However, the documented record shows Milton Keynes Council have been unwilling to do that which has put me in a impossible position & given me no choice but to ask for your help. This is not a difficult problem & it should of been resolved a long time ago. The question is why have Milton Keynes Council ignored what I have told them & what is the point in anyone else following their complaints process if they ignore what they are told. Milton Keynes Council seems to be a completely lawless authority which wilfully puts the psychological & physical health of it’s constituents at risk regardless of the cost.

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer
13 Stanton Avenue
Bradville
Milton Keynes
MK13 7AR

From: P.Lewis@coinweb.lgo.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 1:24 PM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: RE: Re: Confidential: Case ID - 16005136

01 November 2016

Your ref:
Our ref: 16 005 136
(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your email. However, I would be grateful if you put your comments in writing, preferably by email.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lewis
Investigator
0330 4034241
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

From: Peck, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:46 PM
To: mailto:david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Complaint Response


Dear Mr Mortimer,

Following my investigation in to your concerns I have attached a letter to you outlining my findings. Please note that this is the council’s final response to your complaint and you are entitled to approach the Local Government Ombudsman with your concerns.

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Peck

Head of Customer Service

T: 01908 253930
E: Rebecca.Peck@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Customer Service l Civic Offices l Saxon Gate l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

From: Stephanie.Horder@legalaid.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:44 AM
To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
Subject: Legal Aid in regards to human rights breach-Local authority

Dear David,

When speaking to solicitors I would refer them to Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 22 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offender Act 2012, which reads as follows:

Breach of Convention rights by public authority

22(1)Civil legal services provided in relation to—

(a)a claim in tort, or

(b)a claim for damages (other than a claim in tort),

in respect of an act or omission by a public authority that involves a significant breach of Convention rights by the authority.

General exclusions

(2)Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to—

(a)the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule, with the exception of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12of that Part, and

(b)the exclusion in Part 3 of this Schedule.

Specific exclusion

(3)The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include services provided in relation to clinical negligence.

Definitions

(4)In this paragraph—

“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);

“Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998;

“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of that Act.

An application for funding would also need to comply with the exclusions in Parts 2 & 3 of the Act, as well as satisfying the relevant merits criteria as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013.

Kind Regards,

Steph Horder | Senior Caseworker | Customer Service Team | Legal Aid Agency |
DX 7852 Bristol

Customer Services: 0300 200 2020

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/legal-aid-agency

From: Peck, Rebecca
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:03 PM
To: mailto:david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: RE: Complaint Investigation

Dear Mr Mortimer,

I will investigate your complaint in full and respond to you by Monday 17th October. I will contact you by e-mail if I require further information to support my investigation as we agreed when we met.

I have noted your comments below and whilst you state that you have not ‘communicated intent’ I consider that they are threatening in their nature. I have attached a letter to you in relation to this matter which has also been sent to you in the post.

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Peck

Head of Customer Service

T: 01908 253930
E: Rebecca.Peck@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Customer Service l Civic Offices l Saxon Gate l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ

 

From: david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:32 PM
To: Peck, Rebecca
Subject: Re: Complaint Investigation

Dear Rebecca Peck,

I have read what you have said & I hope this matter will be dealt with in the appropriate manner now you have become involved. Please will you kindly confirm if there is anything else I need to do at this time?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

From: Peck, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:09 PM
To: mailto:david@ukfamilylawreform.co.uk
Subject: Complaint Investigation

Dear Mr Mortimer,

Thank you for your time in coming to meet with me today to talk to me about your complaint to the benefits service. As we agreed, I am writing to you to confirm the points that I will be considering in my investigation at the final stage of the council’s complaints process and the outcomes that you would like to resolve your complaint.

From our discussion, I understand the key points of your complaint that require investigation are as follows:

1.) That staff within the benefits service have not acknowledged or taken into account information you have provided in relation to your benefit claim and in particular

a. your end of year accounts

b. receipts that you provided which were wholly and solely for the purposes of your business

c. your website costs and your website being unavailable for a period of time due to a genuine mistake.

d. Particular staff that you had referred to in our discussion were: Jamie Fennell, Anne Jordan, Peter Smythe, Maria Nardiello, Charlotte Hale, Paul Singh and Mandy Burton.

2.) That you feel you are being treated unfairly by benefits staff for the following reasons:

a. That you are not a woman

b. That you felt your ex-partner may have made allegations of domestic violence against you to the council, you explained that you had confirmed with the police that no allegations had been made.

c. That you have been campaigning at a national level including Milton Keynes Council, all other Councils and Members of Parliament in relation to homelessness issues and you have publicised this work on your website www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk

3.) That following the issues you have experienced with the benefits service your company have stopped receiving work from the council or their clients for removals, you referred to an e-mail from Judith Johnson referring to certain companies making additional charges to customers. You explained that your company had not made any such charges and yet you had stopped receiving work.

I understand that the actions that you feel are necessary to resolve your complaint are as follows:

1. For your rent account and council tax account to be put back to the situation they were in in February 2016

2. For the council to acknowledge and address any errors or malpractice involved in your case.

In our meeting you also informed me that you had made a subject access request to the council and had raised a subsequent complaint with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). You advised me that you didn’t want me to consider this as part of my investigation as you were waiting for a response from the ICO.

In our meeting you explained to me how much distress you have been caused by the actions of council staff and their failure to resolve your concerns, the impact that this has had on your relationships including your relationship with your son and the impact on your business partner and his family. You also explained to me that if your complaint was not sorted out through the councils formal complaints procedure or through another route such as the Local Government Ombudsman you may lose your temper and you could not be held responsible for the consequences, but you would be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison. Whilst I will carry out a thorough and independent investigation in to your concerns including reviewing the written records and interviewing the staff involved, I need to be clear that the council does not tolerate threats being made against council staff under any circumstances. Please be aware that if you make any further threatening comments then these will be reported to the police and the council will consider putting in place restrictions to limit your contact with council staff.

I would be grateful if you could review the points I have outlined above and confirm that this is an accurate record of our discussion so that I can commence my investigation. Please note I will now be away from the office until Thursday but I will respond to you on my return.

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Peck

Head of Customer Service

T: 01908 253930
E: Rebecca.Peck@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council l Customer Service l Civic Offices l Saxon Gate l Milton Keynes l MK9 3EJ