Windows on the World Exposes Council Lies after Court Case
Previous article. (See also other SPD articles and info on the site)
Follow up to SPD Form articles.
Waltham Forest Head of Revenues Wendy Gibbs makes untrue statements:
Following the court case over the SPD (Single Persons Discount) validation form officers at Waltham Forest have made untrue statements as shown in the previous articles posted. Last article was “Newlyn and council fraud exposed”.
The latest untruths come from the Head of Revenues Wendy Gibb who wrote to me nearly two months after I exposed the lies of Elaine Logan who of course never replied to my correct determinations, as she couldn’t. She had also ignored legal documentaion and a notice of public estoppel. See previous article "Newlyn and Council Fraud exposed".
Wendy Gibb, head of Revenues (who is also signatory to the latest SPD form they have issued to me despite the court case) now states that Elaine Logan ignored my statutory declaration as the “date was obscured” another untrue statement. She also maintains I signed the SPD form in court to the third party which was untrue.
This information is worth looking at as people are now being evicted from ALMOS (Council Arms Length Management Organizations) responsible for ex council housing stock for having third party mail arrive at their address.
You do not have to give this third party information to the Data mining companies that issue the form, you can simple supply the information yourself on your own paperwork. The council are going out of their way to deny this. As Wendy Gibb is Head of Revenues for Waltham Forest and legally qualified she now has to explain why she has made untrue statements about what happened in court.
When Council Officers lie and obfuscate serving them with paperwork as in the previous articles and below is an essential part of holding them personally accountable.
The issue of a previous “debt” was brought up and the previous article deals with this too. All my determinations made in this documentation are correct and can be used by anybody if it is relevant to their situation.
Using the term “The Peoples' Public Court of Record” is also a good way to have your witnessed material presented.
To: Wendy Gibbs
Head of Revenues
Acting on behalf of
London Borough of Waltham Forest
Re: Letter dated 19th June
In reply to my correspondence,
to Elaine Logan served 22nd April 2013
Statement of Fact
Your letter dated 19th June in response to my correspondence and correct determinations to Elaine Logan contains the following factual errors:
You maintain that Elaine Logan ignored a legal document as “The date stamp was partially obscured”. This statement is untrue.
The date stamp was clearly visible. As stated the legal document, a statutory declaration was dated 22nd Feb and reached your office on 25th. A stamped receipt dated 25th Feb was obtained from a member of staff for LBWF as the document was served by hand.
Wendy Gibbs on behalf of LBWF has made an untrue and misleading statement following the untrue statements of Elaine Logan.
You state that: “You argued that the council should not have used a third party company to carry out a Single Persons Discount review.”
This is untrue. I never argued this, either in previous correspondence or in the court. The argument is, as previously stated on many occasions (in previous documents and recorded phone calls) as produced and witnessed by the judge on Feb 1st 2013. The facts are that the document allows fraud and the document pertains to be a council document, which it is not.
This information was given to me by agents for LBWF as previously stated and is in the public domain. Your agents at LBWF offered to send me a council form but this was never received. This evidence is on the court and public record. The barrister appointed by LBWF Gita Chakravarti also quoted case law which was not relevant to the case and made a similar argument which had no relevance to the facts I presented, there were also incorrect and untrue statements from her which are in the court records. The council were also denied costs yet had served me with their legal costs before the case was heard.
You state: “The application was dismissed by consent upon you (during the hearing) agreeing to complete and sign The Single Person discount review form issued by the third party, which you duly did”.
This statement is untrue. As you are legally qualified I now need to know whether you were in the court and are responsible for making this untrue statement or are merely repeating untrue statements made by officers of LBWF. If this statement is not your own I need to know which person is responsible for this erroneous claim for evidence in any future court proceedings. I have witnesses from the court hearing and also the judges and Clerk’s notes on 1st Feb 2013 which will be on record with the court. You have 14 days from receipt of this letter to retract your untrue statement.
It is also noted below that an SPD form has once again been sent despite you being in possession of all known facts. It is noted that your statement is contradictory as well as untrue. If I signed the SPD form in court as you wrongfully stated you will need to explain why I have been issued another SPD form bearing your name as signatory. This is now deemed to be harassment.
Court hearing 1st Feb
The judge asked me if I would sign one side of the form if he photocopied it and then hand it directly to the council. I stated “Yes, as it removes the controversy”. The judge said “Exactly”. I did not as you maintain sign the form and returned it intact to the undisclosed third party. I gave the form directly to the council. This removed the fraud as was clearly stated in the court. LBWF could have easily supplied such a council form and indeed promised then failed to do so, wasting the time of the courts and council tax payers money on a vexatious and groundless case.
It is a fact that LBWF council had every opportunity to remedy following recorded phone calls which amounted to five further counts of conspiracy to commit fraud. LBWF willfully and knowingly carried on with an incorrect assumption causing a loss to myselfand unlawful gain to their employers under the 2006 Fraud Act.
Any act to procure funds by denial of the facts put before the officers is fraud.
LBWF have ignored the facts presented in court and the legal documentation presented.
LBWF also made demands which did not relate to the case or summons amount after the unlawful removal of my entitlement which caused the loss to myself and the issue of the council generated summons.
Despite your lengthy correspondence the fact remains that there is no magistrate’s liability order in my name from 2009. This matter was brought up in the original court hearing and as stated Alistair Clarke on behalf of LBWF gave erroneous information to the magistrate. This matter though as stated above had nothing to do with the proceedings.
As also stated Magistrates Liability orders are valid for one year only from the date of issue. As you are legally qualified I accept you are in error on this matter. Both LBWF and now Newlyn have failed to produce such a document despite numerous requests. Newlyn have made false claims and stated that they are in possession of a Magistrates liability order in my name, signed and stamped, which is known to be untrue.
As Elaine Logan failed to respond to legal documentation and gave Newlyn false information which they carried on with creating further counts of fraud and also harassment, as sole legally qualified respondent in this matter you are now solely liable as Acting officer for Revenues and all correspondence on this matter will be sent directly to you.
Re: Harassment by Wendy Gibbs
On the 28th June 2013 another SPD form arrived which I have enclosed for your records. I accept this may be administrative error rather than conspiracy to commit more fraud by yourself (as you are signatory to the fraudulent document sent in error) and Elaine Logan for the untrue and misleading statements. As signatory and respondent I now have a known third party on whom to serve documentation, which was previously a point of obfuscation by LBWF.
As you are aware LBWF are in possession of all the known facts after this matter was made public in court and by legal determination that I was, am and have always been the sole occupant of the address above which is information you on behalf of LBWF have on record. You are also in possession of a statutory declaration served on LBWF and witnessed by the district judge in court. I also have information from residents in the borough which proves that in this case as sole occupier of a property I am being harassed as other people have merely confirmed their status regarding sole occupation over the phone to call centre workers at LBWF.
Any further harassment relating to this matter will be documented and used as evidence should any future court action be necessary re unlawful withdrawal of my lawful entitlement to 25 percent discount (as witnessed and lawfully reinstated by LBWF on instruction by the district judge on 1st Feb 2013.)
Please notice the facts that the court and council accepted my documentation. There is no law stating that the SPD form is the only way of supplying the information which as stated creates fraud. There is no law stating that an external document with a priori from an undisclosed third party pertaining to be sent from yourself on behalf of LBWF is lawful and it is believed that none exists.
After accepting the judges determinations and afterwards making untrue statements about the courts decisions and attempting to create more fraud I accept further action may have to be taken against Elaine Logan, Wendy Gibbs and any other officers of LBWF who conspire with LBWF against myself for any further unlawful financial gain.
The Peoples Public Court of record takes notice that the counterclaim was undefended after a period of 14 days and judgment may be sought on this basis.
The above information is now in the public domain and can be used in any form in any medium in any part of the world without prior notice.
A reply from Wendy Gibbs stated she was in court. There was the usual obfuscation and econony of truth, however she states that there will be no need to fill in the SPD form as I supplied a statutory declaration. This is why I went to court over it in the first place. So the council concede that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FILL IN THIS FORM! One day they might stop lying..but until then...