Whilst the offences CCBC has committed under the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act are mostly civil
rather than criminal offences, they are inextricably linked to the criminal offences, and I believe the refusal to supply
information is intended as a way of covering up other unlawful and illegal acts carried out by CCBC. The fact that CCBC so
vehemently refuse to give up information, wilfully breaking the law in the process, even going against the directions
of the Information Commissioner, is clearly significant in this whole matter. If CCBC had nothing to hide, they would have
sent me the information I requested in January 2007, rather than face and LOSE legal action against I brought against them.
There are some very strange goings on with this part of the saga, including secret meetings and strange emails going
around the same old names yet again... and various other little anomalies.
The lack of access to the information completely prejudiced me in the bankruptcy proceedings, since I could neither
substantiate CCBC's claims, nor provide any evidence to the Court that the claims made against me were untrue. Although I knew
CCBC / Kelvin Jones was lying through his teeth, I could provide no evidence at the time to prove it. In short I
was unlawfully denied the right to a fair trial, in contravention of
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act
I have no doubt that this was deliberate on the part of CCBC, since had the Court known the real facts of this case as now illustrated here,
the case would have been thrown out of Court, as not only was it against Court Procedure Rules, but there was actually no case the Court could legitimately hear.
Being a civil rather than criminal case, there was no 'burden of proof' on CCBC to prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'
- they only had to show that on the balance of the argument put before the Court, they were more likely to
be correct than me. The Judge decided in favour of CCBC on their argument I had not paid their (fraudulent) statutory
demand, and that I had admitted that I did owe them an unknown amount over £750 (the minimum debt for a bankruptcy petition).
This "admission of the debt" by me was that I had offered CCBC £2,500 on account in an attempt to settle
the matter amicably. However, CCBC refused to accept this payment. But CCBC then used my honest and innocent intention to settle out of court against me.
This should not have been allowed by the Court, since innocent intention is always a defence in law in any case.
Plus the fact that a creditor (CCBC) cannot take bankruptcy action on a debt they have refused to accept legal tender for.
(see piece on the law of legal tender in section 7 later on)
CCBC had no requirement to actually prove to the Court that any of their 'evidence' was true, since the filing of statutory
demands and bankruptcy orders, along with the affidavits that are submitted to Court with them, are the equivalent to making
statements under oath, so they are assumed by the Court to be truthful where there is no evidence to the contrary.
Of course, CCBC knew I could not submit a single piece of evidence to the contrary, or indeed cross-examine any of their 'evidence',
as CCBC were unlawfully withholding all the documentary evidence, to avoid me presenting it to the Court.
A dirty, illegal, tactic which the Judge should NOT have allowed.
Here is the history of my battle to get CCBC to give up information
On 15th November 2006 I wrote to CCBC disputing Council Tax and Rates and requesting that information be provided. [doc 15]
On 11th January 2007 I again wrote to CCBC, Kelvin Jones directly this time, requesting information [doc 9]
On 15th January 2007 I wrote to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, explaining briefly the problems, informing CCBC clearly that the debt was in dispute,
and again requesting information for the third time. [doc 16] & [doc 16 page 2]
This was acknowledged by CCBC by letter of 17th January 2007 [doc 17]
Since CCBC would not enter sensible negotiations over the incorrect rates bills, I decided the way forward was to obtain
all the information they had on me and the pier, and then I could try to figure out what the correct bills should be myself,
and go from there... So, on 15th January 2007 I served CCBC with formal legal requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 [doc 18] This was acknowledged by letter and receipt of my payment of the £10 fee on
7th February 2007 [doc 19] (for ease, I shall refer to these requests from now on as DPA and FOI requests)
On 7th February 2007 CCBC replied enclosing very limited information. [doc 20]
On 15th February 2007 I wrote to CCBC at the address they requested stating the information they supplied was insufficient for
my needs and that it did not fulfil my requests under the DPA / FOI. [doc 21] & [doc 21 page 2]
On 13th April 2007 I wrote to CCBC informing them they had still not fulfilled my DPA / FOI requests, and that they had now
committed offences by not doing do. [doc 22]
The laws are crystal clear in this regard: The Data Protection Act 1998 gives the Data Controller 40 days from receipt of a request to comply with such request,
or give a relevant reason for refusal. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the relevant authority 20 working days from receipt of a request to comply
with such request, or give a relevant reason for refusal.
CCBC did not comply with either request in the prescribed time, committing offences under both laws.
Not much then happened over the summer of 2007, as the pier being open 16 hours a day, 7 days a week during the summer
took pretty much all my time up!
In autumn of 2007 I telephoned the Information Commissioners Office for advice on what to do next, and they told me
I needed to formally write to CCBC again, as I would have to show I had exhausted all avenues with CCBC,
including their internal complaints procedure, before the ICO could get involved in the matter...
So on 11th November 2007 I wrote to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, again reminding him he had not complied with my DPA / FOI requests, and informing
him I would be seeking redress under the relevant Laws if he continued to unlawfully refuse to give me my information. [doc 23] & [doc 23 page 2]
On 13th Novenmber 2007, Goronwy Edwards replied stating that he could not trace my letter of 13th April 2007, and that my letters of 16th January 2007
(I assume he meant 15th January) "were not legal notices." [doc 10] Quite why he said this is unclear, given that CCBC had accepted the information requests
as submitted [doc 18] and indeed banked my cheque for £10, as the receipt proves: [doc 19]
On 23rd November 2007 Ken Finch, Corporate Director of Resources at CCBC, wrote to me confirming that my complaint was
"now being dealt with under Conwy's Corporate Complaints Procedure" [doc 11]
and that Eryl Rowlands was the officer dealing with my complaint.
Even after escalating to Corporate Complaint level, CCBC still refused to supply my information...
So on 13th April 2008 I wrote to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, again stating my DPA / FOI requests had still not been complied with, and the amounts alleged
owing under the Bankruptcy Petition were still in dispute. [doc 24 page 1] [doc 24 page 2]
[doc 24 page 3] [doc 24 page 4]
[doc 24 page 5] [doc 24 page 6]
Notice this was also copied to various Councillors, including Cllr Chris Hughes, who was supposedly a "Friend of the Pier"
On 16th April 2008 Goronwy Edwards replied suggesting that I "go through the Council's Complaints Procedure"
[doc 25] This was a particularly stupid reply, given that HE had already escalated my complaint to this procedure nearly
5 months earlier! [doc 10] [doc 11] However, this bizarre suggestion could be possibly be explained, as I now suspect the original
Corporate Complaints Procedure" was just a sham and never actually took place at all (see point 4.2 below entitled 'Elaborating The Lies')
On 16th April 2008 I consulted with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, whom I had also sought telephone advice from
previously, and lodged formal complaint with them. [doc 26] CCBC were made aware of this complaint by the PSOW.
On 17th April 2008 I delivered a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office, having exhausted all hope of
getting CCBC to comply with the law. [doc 27]
On 2nd May 2008 Ken Finch, Corporate Director of Resources at CCBC, stated my FOI request and other matters were being
"actively investigated by the Council's Complaints Officer" [doc 28]
On 2nd June 2008 David Smith, Corporate Information & Complaints Manager of CCBC, emailed me to once again confirm they were dealing with my requests under their
"Corporate Complaints Procedure" [doc 29]
On 3rd June 2008 the Information Commissioner wrote to CCBC stating they should complete an internal review of their decision
not to comply with the Law within 20 working days. [doc 30]
[doc 30 page 2] [doc 30 page 3]
On 9th June 2008 Irfon Owen sent an email to the Information Commissioner stating that "as a unit we have had no involvement
with regard to complaint received from a Mr S. Hunt" [doc 73]
This is totally bizarre!
WHY hadn't Irfon Owen or his Information Regulation Unit had any involvement with regard to my complaint in the 7 months to
this point in time that the "Corporate Complaints Procedure" had supposedly been running? - when it was that
very department the complaint was about, for not complying with my information requests! - how can CCBC's
"Corporate Complaints Procedure" work if they don't even investigate the very department / people that the complaint is about?
Also on 9th June 2008 Irfon Owen exchanged a couple of emails with Colin Bailey [doc 74]
"the Unit today has been instructed to address the questions asked by Mr Hunt in his letter dated 15th January 2007"
(that's 18 months earlier!). Since they are talking about questions, rather than information requests, I assume they are
referring to [doc 16] & [doc 16 page 2] rather than [doc 18].
My letter [doc 16] & [doc 16 page2] is my complaint to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, about Kelvin Jones
demanding I pay rates bills on premises he knows I have demolished, and his refusal to supply me with information! It is
pretty much the first comprehensive complaint I made in writing. Now some 18 months after they received the letter, they
were being "instructed" to deal with it. I particularly like the word he uses 'instructed',
as opposed to 'asked' or 'requested' or 'advised'. 'Instructed' implies a reluctance on their part to do what they were told.
And so we roll up to the date of bankruptcy hearing, 17th July 2008, at which point CCBC had committed 2 offences under information laws and had also refused
to comply with the directions of the Information Commissioner. [doc 30]
[doc 30 page 2] [doc 30 page 3]
Due to unfortunate cirumstances, as explained in part 8 below, I could not attend the actual bankruptcy hearing.
As soon as I learnt of the judgment being made against me, I telephoned the Information Commissioner again to explain I had now been made Bankrupt as a result of CCBC
lying to the Court and refusing to supply information with which I could have defended myself. Amazingly, the Lady handling my
complaint (ref RFA0199319) said she had only spoken to Irfon Owen at CCBC moments earlier - what a coincidence???
So I then telephoned Irfon Owen. He apologised that my request had not been dealt with, but stated the reason for this was
that it had "originally gone to the wrong department", and that he "had only recently been made aware of my requests."
He went on to say that he had done an initial search of CCBC's systems, and had tuned up 5,000 emails, and 3.5 copier paper boxes
(I.E. about 8,000 sheets) of various other papers. He said that not all of these might be my data, for instance some might
relate to the slipway next to the pier, and that his search had picked up on the keyword "pier", so he had to go through
every document by hand and decide what could and could not be released to me under the law. He said that since he passed
the pier on his way home each evening, he would drop a bundle of papers in each night until I had everything, but that it
could take a couple of weeks. I said that was OK so long as I knew things were moving at last, and that I would eventually
get it all. He said the first batch of information would be delivered to me at the pier on the afternoon of Friday 18th July 2008.
In the event Mr Owen was unable to deliver this to me on the Friday, but I received it a few days later, followed by
another 2 small packages over the next couple of weeks.
Having sought this information for 18 months, it seems a 'remarkable coincidence' that CCBC decided to start releasing it to
me on 17th July 2008 literally a matter of a few minutes after I was made bankrupt. I do not believe for one moment that was just coincidence.
In a letter received from CCBC on 21st July 2008 with the first batch of information, CCBC fully admit to failures to supply
this information as per the law, and therefore fully admit to at least one offence under both DPA and FOI Laws.
[doc 31] [doc 31 page 2]
I believe that CCBC had been deliberately withholding all my relevant information until AFTER the Bankruptcy
hearing, knowing the information they held would result in the case being struck out by the Court, as
it is now shown that virtually every aspect of their claim was untrue, full of holes, lies and leaves many questions.
2 further small packs of information were sent to me in October 2008, along with a letter stating that I now had all
the information due under my information requests [doc 56] This was yet another LIE -
In January 2009 I was still due information from whole departments within CCBC, the lie was proven later in Colwyn Bay Court.
4.1 Blatant Lies Regarding My Information Requests
Irfon Owen, CCBC's Information Regulation Officer, has now admitted that he received my original request for information on
18th January 2007, even though he blatantly LIED to myself and the Information Commissioners Office on 17th July 2008 that he
had "only recently been made aware of my requests" 18 months is not "recently".
However, despite me asking for clarification, Mr Owen absolutely refuses to reveal whether it was his own decision not to process my request back in
January 2007, or whether some other person at CCBC told him not to. Clearly he is either fearful of incriminating himself
further, or is covering up some wider conspiracy, probably under threat of his job. I suspect the latter is the case, as I
can think of no reason at all why Mr Owen would have had any grudge against me back in January 2007. [doc 57] Personally I
think he is being made scape-goat by others at CCBC.
More lies by Ken Finch...
Ken Finch, Corporate Director of Resources for CCBC, blatantly lied by stating my information request "was incorrectly
forwarded to the Revenue and Benefits Department" (that is Colin Bailey's department) instead of the Information Regulations Unit.
[doc 58, page 1 item 2] rest of letter: [doc 58 page 2]
[doc 58, page 3] [doc 58, page 4]
However, Mr Owen's admission that he did in fact receive my request on
18th January 2007, [doc 57] plus additional evidence such as the fax from one CCBC department
to another dated 18th January 2007 [doc 59] and these various internal emails
[doc 60] and [doc 61] [doc 61 page 2] prove beyond any doubt that my
request was received by Irfon Owen and the Information Regulation Unit and also circulated to, and well known by, several
senior officers in various departments at CCBC in January / February of 2007. These are the same few names that keep cropping up
time after time: Irfon Owen, Colin Bailey, Eryl Rowlands, Derek O'Connor, David Rogers.
On 1st February 2007 Colin Bailey wrote to me on various matters. At the very end of his letter he confirms
"Your letter to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 1998 has been forwarded to the relevant
personnel who will respond to you as soon as possible" [doc 62]
[doc 62 page 2] [doc 62 page 3]
yet again confirming it was received and apparently being dealt with in early 2007.
So what happened?...
My data request was being processed in January / February 2007, as proven above and from what Derek O'Connor is saying
in his internal email [doc 61] [doc 61 page 2] about being conscious of the "clock ticking"
etc., all seems to be as it should... Then all of a sudden there is no more mention of my information requests at all.
No references in any documents. No emails. No faxes. No notes. Nothing. It completely disappears without trace.
How could all these people in the many different departments involved suddenly 'forget' what they are doing
all at the same time? Especially after Derek O'Connor had told everyone they only had a limited time to do the job?
Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no recorded communication telling all these people and departments to stop my data request,
equally there is no record of any communication between any two of the people involved along the lines of
"are we still dealing with this request?" or "we have found some revelvant documents" or "we have no documents in our department"
Also there is no indication that a single document was sent through to Irfon Owen at the
Information Regulations Unit to be collated and checked prior to fulfilling my request.
Very strangely all mention of my information requests just suddenly completely vanishes within CCBC.
Someone clearly stopped the process, and told every single person involved not to discuss it.
Questions to ask
Who decided to suddenly stop processing my information requests in February 2007?
Why did they instruct all the various people to stop the process?
why is there no record of this instruction?
What did that person or persons not want me to find out?
Why did CCBC decide to lie on numerous occasions about my request being "sent to the wrong department",
which is proven to be a complete lie and an attempted cover-up.
4.2 Elaborating The Lies - Bogus Complaint Procedure
Not content with the blatant lies about my information requests supposedly not going to the Information Regulations Unit in
January 2007, the lies are elaborated further still to the extent of Ken Finch setting up what appears to be a completely bogus "internal review
process" to further try to substantiate CCBC's totally fictitious story that my request had gone to the wrong department to
be processed. [doc 11]
On 11th November 2007 I wrote to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, with a complaint that my information requests had not been dealt with, and
that CCBC were therefore in breach of the Law. [doc 23] & [doc 23 page 2]
Ken Finch, Corporate Director of Resources at CCBC, responded on 23rd November 2007 stating that the matter was now being dealt with under their
"Corporate Complaints Procedure" by Eryl Rowlands [doc 11]. To this day, I have never
received an answer from Eryl Rowlands as to why my information requests have not been dealt with.
It should also be noted that Eryl Rowlands was party to the original distribution of my information requests from the
Information Regulations Unit (IRU) in January 2007, as you can see from the emails
[doc 60] and [doc 61] [doc 61 page 2]
so Eryl Rowlands absolutely knew my original request HAD gone to the IRU, as he himself had received emails FROM the IRU in January / February 2007!...
Oh, and Eryl Rowlands was also being emailed by Kelvin Jones about incorrect rates bills at the pier way back in November 2006
The same old handful of names crop up time and time again - so you can see this was hardly a genuine independent complaint process was it?
On 13th April 2008 [doc 24 page 1] [doc 24 page 2]
[doc 24 page 3] [doc 24 page 4]
[doc 24 page 5] [doc 24 page 6]
I wrote to Goronwy Edwards, leader of CCBC, about the continued failure to deal with my information
requests, and also stating that although I had spoken to Eryl Rowlands, he had not resolved the complaint regarding my
information requests. On the 16th April 2008 [doc 25] Goronwy Edwards replied that I should take the matter through their
corporate complaints procedure - even though Eryl Rowlands had allegedly started this process 5 months earlier on the instructions of Goronwy Edwards! -
So the leader of CCBC was now saying I should make another corporate complaint that my first corporate complaint, which itself was a
complaint about non-compliance with my information requests, had not been dealt with?
Confused??? - so that would have been a complaint about a compliant about a complaint about CCBC not complying with the Law.
WHAT UTTER NONSENSE! - remember this prat was supposed to be the LEADER of CCBC! - pretty much sums them up?
Frustrated by this going round in circles and getting no-where, I then made a formal complaint to the Information
Commissioners Office on 17th April 2008 [doc 27]
On the 2nd May 2008, Ken Finch said my complaint was being "actively investigated" [doc 28]
and this was confirmed again on 2nd June 2008 by David Smith [doc 29]
On 3rd June 2008 the Information Commissioners Office contacted the Council to suggest they carry out an Internal Review
of their failure to deal with my corporate complaint [doc 30]
[doc 30 page 2] [doc 30 page 3]
Questions to ask:
Given all the above, why did Irfon Owen tell the Information Commissioner on 9th June 2008 that his unit had no
involvement with my complaint about the Councils failure to process my information requests, when the complaint was
about his very same unit? [doc 73] Could that be because the original Eryl Rowland corporate complaints procedure
never actually took place? That would explain why the very unit the complaint was about apparently had no involvement at all.
If this Eryl Rowland corporate complaint procedure did indeed take place, what was the outcome of his investigations into
why Irfon Owen's information regulation unit failed to comply with my information requests? - and why have I never been
notified of the outcome?
4.3 Mysterious Secret Meeting - now it gets more juicy...
The same few names turn up time and time again in these affairs. Partly just because of their jobs, but I always thought
there was more to it than that... Kelvin Jones and Colin Bailey in particular... We have to wonder just why is the
Senior Recovery Officer, basically the council's in-house debt collector (Kelvin Jones) and the Local Taxation Manager
(Colin Bailey) so involved in my requests for information under DPA / FOI? - they should have nothing to do with it
at all, other than being asked to disclose the documents their respective departments hold, just as every other department at CCBC should
have been asked.
It is not in Kelvin Jones' or Colin Bailey's remit at all to get involved with the Information Regulation Unit's
handling of information requests. Something very fishy going on here.
Now then, this internal CCBC document [doc 63] is calling a "Highly Important" meeting at Colin Baileys office
on 13th June 2008, with Irfon Wyn Owen and Kelvin Jones as "Required Attendees", to discuss the subject
"Mr S Hunt Victoria Pier F.O.I." It is a 1 hour meeting, and very significantly states that the time taken up by the meeting must be shown as
"Out of Office" - WHY? - Why are these same old names being told to record their time spent in a meeting discussing me as being "out of office",
when they were clearly IN a council meeting IN a council office ON council business? - unless of course it wasn't
'official Council business' and they wanted to cover their tracks and leave no trace that this meeting ever took place?
From this 'Highly Important', one hour long meeting, there are no notes, no minutes, no letters produced as a result of the meeting, no other
internal emails or memos or records or mentions of the meeting at all. Given how "Highly Important" this meeting was,
that is very odd in itself don't you think?
CCBC absolutely refuse to reveal ANY information about this meeting, which is against the law. The meeting was about me personally, and they
must by law reveal what it was about and any notes etc. that were made. This is currently under investigation by the Information Commissioner.
Questions to ask about the Secret Meeting
What was this meeting discussing myself really about?
Why on earth is the local taxation manager (Colin Bailey) calling a meeting about an FOI request? He has absolutely no
remit whatsoever to do so. The FOI request should be dealt with by Irfon Owen and his Information Regulation Unit office.
Kelvin Jones has nothing whatsoever to do with FOI requests, so why was he called to this meeting to discuss my
information request and no-one else? This is extremely significant and very very dodgy indeed.
Something is very clearly not right here. The stench of corruption is vile.
It was on 17th July 2008, a month after the mysterious secretive unrecorded meeting, that Irfon Owen told me by telephone he had
"only recently been made aware of" my information request. He also told the exact same story to the Information
Commissioners Office... this, of course, is now proven to be a complete and utter lie, and Irfon Owen has now
admitted to his lies in writing by admitting he actually received my request 18 months earlier, in January 2007, as shown above.
Indeed it is shown that work on my information requests had actually commenced in January 2007, then was suddenly
stopped with absolutely no explanation as to who stopped it, or why it was stopped.
Was it at this top-secret meeting called by Colin Bailey with Kelvin Jones, that Irfon Owen was told to LIE
about the date he received my information request?...
Well if Kelvin Jones, Colin Bailey and Irfon Owen could make a convincing case that my information request had
"gone to the wrong department" and hadn't been received by Irfon Owen until around June 13th 2008 (the date of this
dodgy secret meeting), then they could 'legitimately' not release any of my information for a further 40 days, which would
comfortably get them past the bankruptcy hearing date safely in the knowledge that there was absolutely no way in which
I could successfully defend their untrue claims and lies in Court... Then by telling the Information Commissioners Office,
just minutes after the bankruptcy order was made, that they were now ready to send me my information (within the 40 days
of my request 'suddenly appearing' on Irfon Owen's desk), they would hopefully satisfy the ICO enough not to get
investigated by them, and hence their plot would never be uncovered.
The most important thing to note here is that the "wrong department" that they LIED about
my request originally going to by mistake is COLIN BAILEY'S own department... suddenly the pieces of the jigsaw slot in place.
Did Colin Bailey and Kelvin Jones collude with Irfon Owen as to what documents they should and shouldn't reveal to me?
Was it Colin Bailey & Kelvin Jones who put a stop to processing my information request 18 months earlier,
with another of their top-secret meetings? - that would explain why there is no trace of any instruction to stop processing
my request - if it was done verbally at a top-secret meeting so there was no records on the system to be found at a later date?
Why did they refuse all attempts to sort the issues out amicably?
Why did they not just correct the bills which they absolutely knew to be incorrect?
Why did they refuse to take my money, when that's supposedly what they wanted?
Why do they still hide information to this day, if they have nothing to hide?
Why the secret cloak and dagger meetings, and why the absolute refusal to release ANY information from them?
Above all else, why this tangled web of lies, lies and more damn lies?
There must be some grand over-riding reason for this massive and complex plot, web of lies and secretive meetings
other than just trying to con me out of a few hundred pounds in business rates? I don't believe for one minute a few
hundred quid was their motive.
This is indicative evidence of very serious collusion and corruption. Even though
the withholding of DPA / FOI information could be seen as relatively low-level offences on their own, there is clearly
a whole lot more to it all than just that. Given it eventually led to my malicious bankruptcy, because I was denied any way of defending
their now proven PERJURY and proven FRAUD, this again constitutes a deliberate Perversion of the Course of Justice.
4.4 Court Action taken against CCBC due to their Breach of DPA
Following several months of investigations, the Information Commissioner wrote to me on 8th October 2008
[doc 69] [doc 69 page 2].
They stated their opinion that CCBC had not complied with the Data Protection Act by their failure to process my information
request within 40 days of 18th January 2007. It is as good a statement as you can get from the ICO, since only a
Court can actually make a firm ruling as to whether or not the Law has been broken.
Section 7 of The Data Protection Act provides that a data subject (I.E. myself) can take civil action via the Courts
against a data controller (I.E. CCBC) who is in breach of the sixth principle of the Act (not releasing information).
So I filed an application at the Colwyn & Conwy County Court, which was scheduled for hearing on 13th February 2009.
Despite unquestionable evidence proving CCBC had broken the law, despite CCBC having admitted in writing to failing to provide
information (thus admitting to breaking the law), and despite The Information Commissioner stating their opinion that CCBC
had broken the law, CCBC filed a defence to my claim in a bizarre attempt to try to defend their unlawful actions.
Clearly CCBC had no chance of winning the case, they were clutching at every last straw desperate not to be forced to
release the information to me. Just what were they hiding? Why on earth would a public authority, which is
supposed to be fully accountable and subject to scrutiny, go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid releasing what should
only be very dull and boring information about a local businessman and his premises? What was in their files they were so desperate to keep secret?
CCBC's attempts to defend the Court case were purely vexatious and intended to delay further the date
at which they were finally forced by a Court to provide my information which they should have sent to me without argument 2 years earlier.
CCBC then tried to get the hearing adjourned. However, at the hearing of the adjournment application on 6th February 2009,
the Judge rejected CCBC's application, and stated the hearing should go ahead as listed.
At the hearing on 13th February 2009, CCBC had to admit to the Judge that they had failed to process my information requests.
Then in an almost unprecedented move, the Judge ordered that CCBC must disclose to the court all correspondence between CCBC
and their external solicitors DWF LLP. [doc 82]
That ruling went against the 400-odd year old principle of Legal Privilege, and is extremely significant.
CCBC's in-house solicitor representing them at the hearing, Peter Brown, had never known a court to make this ruling in his career.
David Jones, MP, who is also a trained solicitor, also recognised the significance of this and said it shows how seriously the court thinks the
over-riding case is. He has also never known a court to order against legal privilege. Nor have my own lawyers.
I half expected CCBC to appeal the court order, although doing so would obviously have made it look even more likely that they
were trying to hide something incriminating - much easier to accept the judgment and just keep stuff hidden?
The Court was going to examine the documents and decide which I could have. However, the Judge suggested to CCBC that if the
documents were not contentious (which of course they should not be) then there should be no real reason
to release them directly to me? CCBC's Peter Brown reluctantly had to agree to save face in front of the Judge.
On 7th April 2009, the Court ordered CCBC must disclose all the normally private correspondence between
themselves and their solicitors to me, AND that they must pay my costs in the case of £138.83
CCBC refused to comply with the Court Order by not paying my costs of £138.83, so I obtained a Warrant of Execution
from the Court which added £55.00 onto the costs order, and the Court sent the Bailiffs in to the Council Offices
to collect the full amount. CCBC then decided to LIE to the Court Bailiff by claiming they had paid the costs,
when they knew full well they had not. Upon learning of the lies, the Warrant was re-issued by the Court, and CCBC
decided to pay £138.83 into the Court (thereby admitting they had lied about having already paid me!) but they
now refused to pay the £55.00 Bailiffs costs. Subsequently, the Court ruled that the Council MUST pay the £55.00
costs, but again CCBC refused to pay up, insisting yet another Court Hearing take place at yet more cost to the
taxpayer!... Finally on 15th September 2009, at the Court hearing that CCBC had demanded, CCBC didn't even bother to turn
up! Upon reviewing the evidence, the Judge ruled that the Council MUST PAY me the £55.00 by 4.00pm on 29th September 2009, which they finally did.
So, that was nearly £200.00 of taxpayers money wasted in costs, PLUS CCBC spent hundreds
of pounds of taxpayers money on internal and external legal work, plus all their own court costs, etc., all on a case
they could never win in the first place. Of course, if the Council had not wilfully broken the Law, I would not have
won the original case against them.